issue of slavery. thehe was a student in early 1850s, a young professor's wife was writing a book. he sat in the living room of this professor and listening to excerpts from the book. the book turned out to be the most influential it was called "uncle tom's cabin." and described for people in america the evils of slavery. it had lit the fuse that led to the pressure that ultimately led to the abolition of slavery. in any case, four, five charges, each time the 15th repulsed.s the they were gathering at bottom of the hill for the final assault. late in the day, hot afternoon,

july 2, 1863. the problem was, for chamberlain, his men were out of ammunition. they had it been issued 60 cartridges at the beginning of the battle, and they had all been fired. he then had a choice to make as a leader. he had three options. one was to retreat, a perfectly honorable thing to do in a military situation, but his orders were to hold the ground at all hazards. because if he had not, if the confederates had gotten around little round top, the entire rear of the union army was exposed. his other option was to stand and fight until overwhelmed. that would not have worked well. because it would have only delayed them for a few minutes. instead, he chose an extraordinary option that was

unusual, even at the time, and he uttered one word, and the word was bayonets. there is a dispute in history whether he also said charge and what his order was, but everyone agrees he uttered the word bayonets, and his soldiers knew what that meant, and down the hill into the face of the final confederate charge came 200 crazy guys from maine. the 15th alabama for the first and only time in the civil war was so shocked by the technique that they turned around. the 200 boys from maine -- i say 200 because at the beginning there were over 300. they had lost 100 to casualties and death. captured 400 to 500 confederates with no bullets in their guns. chamberlain tried to call on their men back. they said, hell no, general, we are on our way to richmond. i tell the story because it is a great story of bravery. chamberlain received the medal of honor for his bravery and

creativity that afternoon. i tell the story because it is a story of our country, a story of how a single person's actions and bravery can have enormous impact. historians argue about whether this was really the key turning point, was there something else, another regiment somewhere else? the argument could be made at this college professor from maine saved the united states. the defining moment for our country was that hot afternoon in pennsylvania, july 2, 1863. i believe it is one of the great stories in american history, and in fact, the story of chamberlain and little round top is being taught in army manuals today as a story of leadership, creativity,

courage, perseverance, and of devotion to god and country. mr. president, i hope all americans will think about these moments and thousands more like them as we celebrate not only the birth of our country next week, but also the rebirth of our country in the three days prior to july 4. thank you, mr. president. the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, live coverage with historians through the day. at 5:30, we take your calls and tweets for jeff shahara, and carol reardon. the commemorative ceremony with arns goodwin, and we end at 9:15 with peter carmichael taking your calls and

tweets. >> kentucky senator rand paul spoke at a fundraising dinner tonight in west columbia, introduced by nick mulvaney. this is about a hald an hour. i have been asked to introduced a friend of mine. in washington, we have a saying that if you want a friend, get a dog. it is a way to give you cannot trust anybody up there. i have not followed that rule precisely since i've been there. verye actually made some good friends, some of my best friends. you all know and have heard, and i will tell you it is true, that tray and jeff and tim and i have become friends in the last

couple of years. and the scoutmaster has become a good friend of mine. he is still a senior member of the delegation. i do have some good friends, but not many. it is difficult to make friends in washington, d.c.. but tonight i want to introduce one of those people. talk is relatively cheap in washington, most of it anyway. some of that has been pretty good. when i first got to washington a center called and said, you have been doing some good work with the guys, and why don't you come and meet some of the guys on my side? and we started to get together once or twice a month to have dinner and talk about these issues. and senator demands and i would -- centered demint and i would get together along with some others and talk about these issues. that is how we got talking about the fiscal cliff and the debt and those sorts of things. it is very rare that you actually see that talk go into action.

that is where you learn where the real leaders are. we you're crazy things happening in washington, and there is a certain -- we hear there are crazy things happening a washington, and there's certain outrage. you call me or you call jeff and you are outraged about what is happening in the country. and you expect us to do more than just talk about it up in washington, d.c. and there are very few people who do that. there are very few people would take the outrage that you and i share internet and to action. the gentleman i the one to introduce you to today is a delmon who takes that outrage and those words and turns them into action. i now, you know what happened when he took a relatively simple question and, in my mind it was one of the great examples of action in washington, d.c. this year.

he said, is it okay the the for the united states government to kill u.s. citizens with drones? you would expect the answer to that the know. -- the answer to that to be no. a lot of us actually went out and did something about it. i heard how long you talked, 12 hours, 14, whenever. ouras not been just on individual liberties. it was not just in a filibuster. it has been on gun-control. just yesterday, this awful senate bill that got past, the type of thing they're rand -- that's rand study of -- that rand stood up and took action against. thes highly unlikely that republicans lost just because grand paul.

and by beginning of, then i went outside to explain how his son beat me in golf. he's a great leader and a great senator and it is my pleasure to have him here in south carolina. my friend, ran the call. [applause] ]rand paul. [applause] >> he neglected to mention that it is a short list of friends, right? it is just a short list. and and how my errors came up, but none of his seemed to. we play every year with the democrats, and we are still

pretty mad about this. we got 22-nothing this year, and last year it was 24 or something. and it's one guy, he was 22 years old and he played baseball in college. youi say, look, democrats, guys love them -- regulations so much. wido we passed a regulation that your pitcher can only pitch for two innings? so far, have not gotten anything back from them on that. you guys like equality of outcome, right? maybe we need to get six hours per inning. and if nagl -- if y'all score six runs, maybe we should get six runs, just to be fair. i got up early this morning, and i could not find my cellphone. i looked everywhere for it, but i could not find it. i went in and ask harry reid i

could borrow his phone. do you think the nsa is surprised to see harry reid and a republican gathering in south carolina? [laughter] i get a lot of my news from jimmy kimmel, and he said the president the other day was at a middle school. he was offering something for free, which usually does, free high speed internet. and it was kind of an awkward moment and a kid packed -- an awkward moment, because a kid walked up and said, "y, so you can read my e-mail faster? [laughter] there was a little girl that wanted $100 and she said she would do good things with it. she wrote a letter to god asking for $100. the postmaster thought that was kind of neat, but where do our work -- where do i need it? emailed to the president, and the president said that is cute. and the president said to mike centre $5.

and your parents said to always write a thank you. and she said, dear god, thank you $45. but next time, do not send it through washington, they stole -- thank you for the $5. but next time, do not send it to washington. they stole $95. and another one, a guy walks up to a woman on the street and says, pardon me, ma'am, do you know that the president has pardon the sequester and send it to portugal? and one after another they said, they deserve it over there. you wonder who is voting in the elections. and then one woman said, you heard that north korea is

threatening bombs and doing weapons tests. you heard the president has sent them the sequester. and once again, they deserve it. we have a disconnect between an electorate who does not know what a sequester is, or where benghazi is, but we have them engaging in the debate may be, and showing up to vote may be. on the sequestered, we are actually winning the battle on this. the president said the sky is falling. the world will end. oh, my, we cannot possibly have this sequestered, which is a cat in the rate of increase in spending. i.v. zena charts on tv? here is without a sequester. -- mahtesian the charts on tv? here is without a sequester.

here is with the sequestered. the same we can never knows of guided tours in the united states, do you know what he did? he had an extra $250 million to send to egypt. we have extra money in a shoebox somewhere to sent to egypt. we have no money. the cover is bare, but we have money to send overseas. when i see a mob on television during the american flag and chanting "death to america" i say, not one penny more. [applause] and the president said, where could we possibly cut? how will we deal with the sequestered? we waited a year-and-a-half after the question was asked in 2011. a year-and-a-half later he says, what are we going to do? we have to cut out the air traffic controllers, the meat inspectors. your meat will be granted. planes will be crashing into each other. we have a $4 trillion

government and that is the first thing you're going to cut back i think people -- that is the first thing you're going to cuts? i think people saw through it. he is playing games. egypt has gotten over $2 billion this year from us. toare still sending money pakistan. pakistan imprisoned the doctor to help us to get bin laden for the rest of his life, and what do we do? we say, oh, please release him, but here is another billion dollars. they do not understand that kind of leverage. they understand, don't send anything and they will release him. i introduced a bill that said, no more money to pakistan unless you release him. in my opinion, you should not send it at all, but being the moderate and i am, i said, we would give it back to you. you actually get all the back foreign aid that you think you

deserve if you release him. inot 20 votes in the rest -- the senate. i lost over half of the republicans on this and all of the democrats. i frankly can't say that if it was a democratic fund-raiser in columbia, -- i can say that if this was a democratic fund raiser in columbia, it would not be this big, but it would be spending more money. in washington, they still think no one will be our friend unless we send them money. the president of egypt, morsi, stands next to his spiritual leader who says "death to israel" who is also says the israelis are descendants of pigs and dogs. i have an idea for another amendment, and so far they have

not let me vote on this. wido we ask part -- president morsi to publicly recognize israel's right to exist before he gets another penny? [applause] interestingly, nobody wants to vote on these amendments. we have also talked about what you could do to cut spending. if you do not rehire people retire from government, that is $6 billion a year. the year and a half you waited, that is $9 billion. we literally only needed about $40 billion. we are 25% of the way there. we spent $9 billion on air travel. one thing that calls me to no end -- galls me to no end is i will have people fly from washington and stay in a $500 per night hotel to have a meeting when we could have met in bowling green at no expense. weekend cut $2.2 billion from

travel and save the military being cut from travel. [applause] simply have competitive contracts. in government, we do not give the bids to the lowest bidder, but to the lowest bidder that is using union scale wages out chicago. we have a prevailing wage law that says, maybe the average car voire dire in colombia that make -- makes $30 per hour, but it has to be $70 per hour. schools and roads being built sometimes cost up to 20% more. why don't we get rid of davis-

bacon? a will save us $10 billion year. [applause] but i don't think the president was really listening, so i came up with a few other ideas to get his attention. for example, we spent $325,000 on the robotic score last year. why would we need that? scientists wanted to know if a rattlesnake would strike a squirrel that was not writing its tail. but they could not get into this world -- get a squirrel to volunteer to do that. $325,000 for that. we spent half a million dollars developing a unit to mars. if you have a child that is 26 years old and they're waiting -- were waiting for them to move out? it is the proper job for them. -- it is the perfect job for that.

develop a government study. the prerequisites for doing the study were pretty strict. your kid had to like food. after spending $5,000 per person for all expenses paid trip to hawaii, they discover the best thing these college kids to come up with a copy to. -- could come up with, pizza. there is waste everywhere. inrybody who has ever been the military knows there is waste. that does not mean i'm against national defence. it is one of the most important things that we spend money on. constitutionale function it should be a priority.

writeat does not mean we a blank check. we should audit the pentagon. too big to be audited? tom coburn on the south, one of the great deficit hawks and wease warriors up there. -- tom coburn found this out, one of the great deficit hawks and waste warriors up there, he found $7 billion that could be cut from the defense budget. they handed in $1.8 billion for a study to develop world of beef jerky. i'm not sure how that is keeping the russians or others at bay. toy had $5 billion in there study a collection of fish. i caught -- i called it a bunch of goldfish, and they were actually golden fish. there's a lot of money being wasted in a $4 trillion budget.

one more, $3 billion spent to study monkeys on math onmeth. does anyone -- monkeys on meth. are anyone think that they not just as crazy as people crazymeth? -- as people on meth? if you do a 1% sequester across the entire budget, the budget balances within five or six years. connie mack came up with this idea and a lot of people have endorsed it. cut 1%. we have a trillion dollar budget and you cut 1%? the reason is you cut 1% from a baseline of zero. everything they talk about in washington is a lie. the budget is going up. baseline is about 5%.

remember the dead commission and the biggest ever or to cut was -- that commission and the biggest they were. to cut was $4 trillion. spending, you can anticipate it to go up $9 trillion. alika -- will we talk about baseline of zero, it is only about $30 billion cut, but cbo would call it $600 million a year because they plan on getting more money. i have to stop all this. forve had a few questions hillary clinton. [applause] she has not really into them to my satisfaction. i have a few more that keep

cropping up and i hope that we can get her back. notrankly, think she is telling the truth. i asked her point blank, where we sending arms from libya to turkey to syria, and might that have had something to do with the terrorist attacks that have happened? she said she had never heard of it. it has been written about in the "the new york times" 10 times and has been on fox news. if it is classified, are you allowed to lie? that is what came up with the nsa recently were the national intelligence director kaine before the senate and he was promised -- came before the senate and he was prompted in advance. i wanted to think about this question, is the nsa collecting any data on americans? and he said publicly, know. it is against the law to lie to us.

what does that do? people said the leagues have damaged our security. do you know what has damaged our security? lying, because now i don't know whether i can trust him. [applause] they now say that there are 50 terrorists that we could not have caught without this secret mining of american phone calls. but i watch what they say, though. program, with this and/or other sources. i am forecasting terrorists. i have no sympathy for the tsarnaev boy. i would pull the switch after he is convicted.

we had a tip on the boston bomber. the tip was that russia thought he might be a terrorist. we could not get an interview, but then he went back to chechnya we are mindful calls of america. we are up to our eyeballs in debt. we are not seeing the guy that has been tipped off to us. the underwear bomber, he was tipped off to us. and still got on the plane try to come over here. year-sa, do you think a 3- old american kid with spina bifida is going to blow up a plane? do you think a veteran who has lost both legs is one to try to blow up a plane? you do not make a veteran take his prestige is off to go through the scanners hobbling -- his prosthesis off to go through the scanners hobbling. if you are in international traveler visiting from pakistan, you deserve more scrutiny. after 9/11, we had a special program for student visas.

from 25 countries we looked especially hard at your student visas. why? werese 16 of the hijackers overstaying their student visas. was it profiling? yes, because only certain people were attacking. why do we use some brain sends to go after the people who are attacking us? [applause] i tried to reinstitute this with an amendment to the immigration bill. i said, let's restart is targeted looking at student visas from certain countries, but let's also do it with refugees from other countries. we have admitted 70,000 people from iraq for asylum. i thought that was when you were escaping dictatorship.

we have won the war and 70,000 of them are here. 80% living government housing. they should be in iraq making their country a better country. that is harsh, but that is really what should happen. we do not need them here immediately and all on government assistance. but we don't want to talk about national security with regard to our borders. the boston bomber, when we did catch the young one -- one was killed in a firefight and the other was wounded. the boston policeman came to speak at a fund-raiser and i thought it was important. you may not all agree, but it is worth thinking about. he said, when i got to the scene, it was horrific. i was applying tourniquets and trying to save people's lives.

it is just hard to imagine people blown to smithereens. and he said, then we have got a stable and we were in pursuit of these two killers, and i was angry at them -- and i still feel this incredible anger. but he said, after the firefight and we capture them, we did not drive them through the street and beat them with tire irons. because we are civilized. it is what separates us from them. this young man is evil. there is nothing good about killing women and children and think that will lead vance a political cause. -- will advance a political cause. he is going to get an attorney. he is going to be convicted and he will be punished. but it is better than putting someone to death in other places around the world and not trying them. i am for getting information out of him, but indefinitely sending people there, or to give american citizens, is not the

way to go about it. we had an american citizen accused of terrorism to be sent there's been a time in our history when we did stuff like this, when a black man in 1910 would be strung up from the nearest tree if someone accused him of rape. there was no trial. it was an awful time in our history. we took the japanese in world war ii and put them in concentration camps, an awful time in our history. it is a novel concept to think that we're going to send an american -- an awful concept to think that we are going to send an american. think about 28 terrorists might be. people have multiple weapons at home -- anybody in here? people who have weatherized ammunition.

this is the list of suspects for terrorism. do you think you might want a trial before you get sent to guantanamo bay? we do need to be careful. finally, i would say what makes us a bigger party is what -- is ultimately, the message of optimism. there is a painting by robert bly and he said, you should paint like a man coming over a hill singing. when i think of what our message should be, i think of patrick henry -- give me liberty or give me death. i think of the passion of the founding fathers, of those who stood up for the fourth amendment, the first amendment, the second amendment, with passion. terrorists are bad people. zore regas and murderers. we give them all -- so are regas and murderers.-- rapists and

murderers. we give them all trials. we want to stand up for our system. when we come -- become the party that stands of and proclaims our message like a man coming over a hill singing, then we will be the dominant party again. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> we've got a guest from our

republican party that we want to present to you. winky so much for being here. -- thank you so much for being here. [applause]

>> i have no intention of streamlining government or making it more efficient. i intend to reduce its size.

>> former florida governor jeb bush was the keynote speaker at a fundraiser for the conservative party of new york. this is about a half an hour. [applause] thank you very much. mike, thank you for that kind introduction. it is a thrill and delight to be here. bem particularly thrilled to co-honored with chris ruddy. chris, you don't -- did build that. institutioned this is based in west palm beach. it is a delight to be with the great entrepreneur and someone who gets the message out for the conservative cause, not just here in new york and florida, but across the world. some of my best interviews have been with news next tv -- news

max tv. it is a joy to be with all of you, strong supporters of the conservative party of new york. conservative before country was cool. continuing to do so with great fealty and great loyalty. you have proved that even in the state that doesn't often support conservative candidates, your involvement, your presence truly makes a difference. it is great to be here. maher, it is great to be with you to. -- mayor, it is great to be with you to. [applause] i have been to the rodeo couple of times as a candidate, and joe comes up to the chairman and says, do we have enough time for me to go down to start shaking hands with people? i'm running for mayor and i need to keep shaking hands of people. a good sign. sis -- greateat

success. i congratulate everybody's hard work to promote the conservative cause. at the reception, a lot of you were asking about all things bush, so i thought i would give you an update. my mom and dad are doing well. my dad has recovered from a really bad illness. he was in the icu. [applause] news forhe very good all the bush family. i love my dad, he is the greatest man i have ever met. i'm totally not objective about this. you can take it for what it is worth. we are happy he is out of the hospital and doing better each and every day. the bad news is he doesn't have the caregivers at memorial hospital in houston come all those beautiful nurses taking care of him. -- he'sa new caregiver got a new caregiver, kerning is barbara bush, and she is probably helping quite a bit.

my brother is out of the limelight, keeping a low profile, but since you asked, marvin is doing really well. thank u so much for your concerns about him. [laughter] george and laura are doing spectacularly. they opened up the presidential library, and if you ever get to dallas, you need to go see it. it is a great place. they continue to do their work. i am incredibly proud of my brother. [applause] i love the fact that his favorability rating is now about 50%, a little bit higher than the current occupant of the white house. [applause] it proves in politics things go up and down, but over time people begin to make their assessments quietly in their own ways. i think history will continue to be kind about my brother.

the last thing about the bush family, i desperately wanted to have grandkids. it was an obsession of mine. everyone would come and show off their pictures on their iphones. if you want to see the pictures of my two grandchildren, you get a sense of where that came from. 23 months. the joy of my life. we call her 41. [laughter] 3 weeks old, prescott walker bush, it makes everything in the right perspective. family matters the most in life. yours is a little bit bigger than mine.

nevertheless, family matters a lot. thank you for asking about the bushes. [applause] i will not speak a lot about the last election in november. i will let you all suffer along with me in that regard. we got beat because our rand is tarnished with an ever changing america. we might believe that we represent the best hope for america, but unfortunately, that is not how most americans thought and what about casting their ballots. they were given a choice between two visions, one was conservative and familiar to all of us, the other choice offered other things, a different vision. it offered what i believe is false promises of economic security in lieu of economic opportunity. the other choice won out. how could somebody convince a

majority of millions of voters that they are better off having their own economic decisions and healthcare and religious freedoms and financial choices and everything else in their lives managed by a bureaucracy and progressive elites? the answer is simple -- we do not make our case that well. they did. this is important. the path we are on today is a path of decline. it is a path that is far less than our potential. it is a path where the new normal is seven percent unemployment. it is a path where 48 million people are on food stamps and 10 million people are on disability. it is a path where millions of children are stuck in failing schools everyday. this is a future so bleak that the recent wall street journal

story said, "america's risk- taking culture appears to be fading." it is not that we are seeing the decline of the american dream. we are seeing the decline of american dreamers. to my my goal is not just to focus on what we need to do to win elections. my goal is to talk about how we focus on winning back the future of this country. what is our challenge? the reason i was looking at a set of black and white pictures at the turn of the 20th century, amazing photos from the library of congress and the historical treasure. what is striking about that time is that america was a young nation. you could see in the photos that there was a photo that struck me of bathers in west palm beach.

to purchase some of that empty land at the turn-of-the-century. our nation understood it would grow. growth was taken for granted. america at the very same dynamism that he's in hong kong and tel aviv -- that you see in hong kong and tel aviv -- we welcome growth in all of its forms. we welcome new immigrants. we welcome new technologies. we explore our natural boundaries. we had some catching up to do. because we were behind, we did not have time to waste. just wait a few more years while the planners figured this out. we couldn't afford to wait one day. too much was at stake.

that sense of playing behind was one of our greatest and most important national characteristics. we had to be bold. we had to be willing to make mistakes. we had to think like the young nation that we were. my question to you tonight is this -- can we be a young country like that again? it would be an emerging country. if we can, i believe it would be precisely because of the ideas and the policies and the people represented in this room. i believe the conservative movement can restore america's health and help make it the oldest young nation on the face of the planet. let's start with a core idea, an idea that i think we can all agree upon. growth is a choice, an idea that does not happen by chance. economist might disagree.

you might say that economic activity and greater investment and riser -- on one level, they are correct. but those don't just happen. they happen because we agreed to pursue them. recruitment policy so we can have more of it. growth is a choice. they want us to get used to 2% of gdp growth as the normal. they would prefer us to accept slower growth as the price for greater certainty. they prefer less experimentation and more regulations and less disruption and less dynamism. they want us to set up more guard rails against the risk and a sudden change. more speed bumps, if you will. so everything down to a nice and moderate pace so the central planners can figure it all out. shave off the tops of economic cycles and put more cushion for

those dollars as well. it gets much harder to pick up speed. when you are a freight of change, you become more complacent. you fear losing what you have. that is the attitude that prevails in this country come especially in the white house. president obama has many gifts, but one thing he does not seem to understand is basic economics. he has this almost naive view that america's economy is so strong that you can do anything to it and nothing bad will happen. you can nationalize health and undermine the banking sector there and raise taxes and fees and regulate with abandon. trillion dollar deficits annually. demonize small business owners and investors. in his world, it does not leave a mark. but it has left a mark.

we are still several million dollars -- we are still several million jobs short than where we were. we have 8 million americans who have simply given up on looking for work. we have an entire city that was once a great city teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. that city is detroit and more cities are behind it. we have had more than four years to see what barack obama knows about economics. the truth is, with all respect, he is an utter and complete failure. that is why we need to adopt -- [applause] before we change our policies, we need to adopt the mentality and the approach of an emerging country. the embrace of the unknown.

it is all part of a great untapped opportunity if they choose to explore. what should we do to make the choice of economic growth in our country? patriotic energy policy based on u.s. innovation and north american resources. shifting immigration policy to an economic strategy to create and sustain economic growth. a radical transformation so that all children are given the chance to succeed to be able to gain the power of knowledge to access the first rung of the economic ladder. fourth, we need to restore loving and committed family life as organizing principle of the institution in american life. [applause] on energy, we are the most energy resource country in the world.

we have over 100 years of supplies of gas. billions of barrels. we are the source of innovation in the world. the most transformative innovations is the internet was commercialized is the combination of to existing innovations that have around for a while and horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking. we should be celebrating this phenomenal -- and we have. some states are choosing not to grow. it is they are saying in the debate, that is for other people and not for us. in parts of new york, there is a huge opportunity exists for the

restoration of economic -- the communities young people grew up in our diminishing day by day as liberals decide that american innovation in this area is too scary. it creates too many opportunities to get my break the idea that somehow government is the solution to our problems. what should we do? president obama approved -- needs to approve the xl pipeline for crying out loud. [applause] this is the biggest no-brainer that exists. we should have rational regulation for fracking to make sure it is done responsibly, but do not paralyze it. i do not think matt damon should be the president of environment protection.

we need to create that thousands of jobs and billions of investment in our own country. we should open up federal lands and waters for drilling. there has been a significant decline in the obama years. getting oil from parts of the world that are unstable and could hate us or do hate us is a better strategy than developing our own resources and -- we should help mexico with the modernization of its oil sector. the objective should be energy secure with north american resources and american technology driving that change. we should let the market forces decide where to invest. do not resort to government venture capital because it is clearly an oxymoron. it does not work. [applause] a real energy strategy would give us 1% additional real

growth in our economy. it would create a burst of optimism that would get us right on track. there are other things we need to do. united states has a huge economic advantage over any other country in this world. i think of immigration not as a political issue, but economic issue. demography is destiny. an aging population with fewer workers mean slower growth. it means a growing burden on young workers. the slow-growing developing countries have all decades of low fertility rates. japan, europe, russia, and now china feeling the devastating impacts of its one child policy. our fertility rate has dropped dramatically in the last few years. it stands at 1.8. that is below break even. despite heroic efforts to have nine kids -- [laughter]

eileen, it is clear you have done your part. no question about it. i'm told numbers of grandkids. -- untold number of grandkids. i have a family experience in this regard. my wife comes from mexico. she is an american by choice. my beautiful daughter-in-law is from canada. immigration is part of our heritage. everyone has an immigrant expense they can share. immigrants are the economic engine of vitality. they make things happen. we need to make more things and have more people focused on making things happen.

as the number of businesses created by native americans declines, the businesses among immigrants has soared to 50%. in 1999, american scientists were granted 90,000 patents compared to 70,000 patents from sciences from other countries. 10 years later, more patents granted by foreign scientists that americans. what do we need to do? how do we get out of the political realm and make it a high growth come economic strategy creates opportunities for all of us? we need to do except -- accept the fact that our immigration system is broken. it does not work. [applause] we are not enforcing the laws. we group -- we are creating mistrust. when not taking advantage -- we're not taking vantage of citizens that that wait in limbo. that makes it ethical for employers to get the talent that

they need and it turns many ambitious people into lawbreakers. immigration policy must be grounded in the role of law. [applause] we need to continue to improve our border security and track down that thousands of people who overstay their visas. 40% of the people here illegally came through legal visas. a great country should be able to figure out who those people are and politely ask them to leave when their visas expire. getting here and staying here illegally should be much harder with greater costs than -- today, there is no legal immigration for a great number of people. we need to have a comprehensive approach. border security itself will not solve the problem unless we make a path to legal status for those that we want to calm.

-- come. it should be narrowed to reuniting family. canada has about 75% of its immigrants covering economic purposes. we are the only country that has this broad definition of family. we ought to be strategic about this as canada has and others have to create economic activity. work-based abuses should be increased based on needs. -- work-based visas should be increased based on needs. a robust guestworker program for seasonal industries and many of those industries -- it is crucial. for people who come in legally,

a path legal status should happen by paying a fine and learning english and understanding our own history. no welfare payments during the time of their waiting for their permanent legal status. no breaking of the laws. this is the path to a better place. [applause] those two policy areas alone done right would create a significantly higher growth rate for our country over the long haul. in order to sustain that we have to assure that the god-given ability of every child is fulfilled. today in america, that is not the case. we spend more per student than any other country in the world other than luxenberg. i was told that norway is ahead of us.

the simple fact is that we spend a ton of money for students and we have 40% of our kids challenge or career ready. the high school graduation rate is about 80%. that means him and gets a piece of paper, but when they go to a college or community college, certainly they are not career ready. this is that tragedy of complacency in our country. we operate with a structure that looks similar to what look like what hundred years ago. 13,000 plus public monopolies driven by the economic interest of adults and being the model for our kids. and agriculture calendar for the times that kids go to school and we expect in 2013 we will get the kind of results that we need. we do not need reform.

we need transformation. we need the courage to challenge every basic assumption of how this works. we started on this journey by raising standards and grading schools and eliminating social promotion and embracing every possible school choice program that the legislation would allow us to have. we can focus on early childhood literacy. turning the system upside down, we went from the bottom of the pack to -- we went from -- to 6 out of 50. we moved the needle. math scores have seen dramatic improvement. you can move the needle, but you need the courage to make

something work. [applause] the next big challenge is higher standards. in 1998 as a candidate, i sat behind a young man who is studying for the high school graduation test at that time. it was in eighth grade level aptitude. eighth-grade level. this kid was struggling. a baseball game starts at 3:00 and ends at 4:30 p.m. how long did the game go? he could not answer the question. [laughter] there is always a wise guy in the crowd. this simple fact is this guy couldn't answer it. the sad fact is that thousands and thousands of kids in our country today through mediocrity and lowering standards and

having excuses and saying it is not fair to have high standards for all kids because we are told over and over again and that result is that a 16-year-old kid not answer that question. how can he get a job? how can you expect them to be career or college ready? this is what is happening in new york and florida. we need to light up the scoreboard to challenge every basic assumption to move our system. high expectations for every kids. [applause] if we don't do this, we changed we are as a nation. you pursue those other dreams with a vengeance, you can do anything you want to be. if we skew the way the failure of education system -- a kid

could have a dream, but they don't have the tools to pursue those dreams, we create two americas. one that is stuck permanently in poverty and the other that might live above all of us and quite well. we need to challenge the system to make sure that there is upward social mobility again in our country. [applause] the final way to secure a sustainable high growth and emerging nation kind of country, families matter. do not ignore the fact that our founders when they created this incredible country, they assumed we would be a self-governing people. they assumed we could turn-- govern

ourselves and the best means of governing ourselves was to have a committed family life that loves children with all their hearts and soul. there is an effort in the adult success to ensure that their children gain the power of knowledge and gain the virtues that allow them to be successful in life. that concept has been eroded dramatically. there is now this time in political correctness where we cannot even talk about it. 42% of all babies brought into the world will be brought into a world out of wedlock. there is a dad somewhere, not the husband of the mom that is not living in the family and committed as all debt should be -- and not committed as all dads

should be. no country has been successful and that kind of environment that i am aware of. there should be stability and passion and love and respect. i will not get into the specific details, but let me say that if we expect as that liberals and progressives suggest, whenever you hear the problems of family life like this, the default for the liberals and progressives are another government program. another set of rules and regulations. another hiring of people who have higher incomes. -- higher tax on people with higher incomes. we need to look ourselves in the mirror as a country and say, is this the most powerful entity in life? the fact that you came to this dinner is living proof of that. the single most powerful institution in america for success are committed families. that should be at the bedrock of

who we are. [applause] now that i am a grandfather, and understand expression man plans and god laughs. i'm starting to get the joke. i do see things not in great, but in black and white much more than i used to. not about the little things, but the big innings. the big thing is america's future. will it go down the path of expectations with fewer opportunities? that is what politics is about in the next election cycle. there can be no middle ground on this issue. america is the sum total of the choices that all of us citizens make. with every issue i discussed --

energy, immigration, family -- i have a bias choosing what america could look like five years from now, 10 years and now, 20 years are now, or even 100 years are now. that is how an emerging market should think. that is how we should think. president obama is not making good choices. on immigration he has not led. on foreign policy, it does not lead, even from behind. thankfully, we can reverse the bad choices as easily as the good ones. that is the work of the conservative party. there's a vision that welcomes economic growth and freedom in all of its forms. a vision that sees potential in every life and all new visions.

a vision that america was once vibrant and optimistic and ready to grow. it can be that way again. america's best days are ahead of it. that is a vision that we will choose with your help. that can be a reality. thank you. god bless you all. god bless the conservative party of new york. [applause] next on c-span, the house oversight committee debates whether irs official lois lerner waived her fifth amendment right at a hearing in may. then representative zoe lofgren and mario diaz-balart talk about immigration prop -- policy in the house. kentucky senator rand paul campaigns a south carolina fundraising dinner. >> tomorrow on "washington

journal," a roundtable discussion on president obama's plan for addressing climate change with josh was i've -- joshua zive and bob deans. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this sunday, american history tv on c-span 3 commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. regiments four of the were recruited early on in the out of new york city. this particular regiment was recruited in the fire halls of new york city. the firemen of new york city answered the call to come to the duty into the army is union soldiers. -- there willbout

be about 350 of them on july 2. 46% casualties good the dedication ceremony, the honorable robert b newby said this -- there are times in the life of nations when the energetic actions of even a small number of men will arouse in others the highest and noblest sentiments and spur their mind to a sense of their duty and a greater degree than the chivalrous eloquence of even the most gifted orator. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. wife coverage on sunday begins at 9:30 eastern with historians throughout the day. later at 5:30, we will take your calls and tweets. at 8:00, the commemorative ceremony with keynote speaker end the day and 9:15e will

with civil war institute director peter carmichael taking your calls and tweets. you can summit questions and comments to our sunday guest today at facebook.com/c-span histhistory. >> the house oversight committee today voted along party lines to pass a resolution saying that irs official lois lerner waived her right to remain silent. ms. lerner was in charge of the irs tax exempt organization office and is now on administrative leave. the committee's meeting this morning was about 90 minutes. >> the committee will come to order. the committee meets today to consider a resolution to determine whether lois lerner waived her fifth amendment privilege against self- incrimination when she made a voluntary opening statement during the committee's hearing that began on may 22, 2013.

the clerk will designate the resolution. >> the resolution on the committee on oversight and government reform. >> without objection, the resolution will be considered as read and open for a minute at any point. the text has been distributed. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. we are here today to resolve something the united states has. did lois lerner waived her fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination during the committee hearing that began may 22, 2013? during the hearing that began on may 22, more than five weeks ago, i tried to be exceedingly cautious. i did not make a quick or uninformed decision on the

waiver. because the decision is one that does not often get made, and it is extremely important both to the discovery of congress and its duties, and quite candidly, toward the real question of whether or not people would come and give one side of a story and not allow themselves be cross examined. as chairman, it is my obligation to be fair and impartial and to lead this committee not on one side or the other, but to the greatest extent possible to make my decisions in concert with the parliamentarian, with house counsel, and consistent with what we would want to have if and when the gavel moves to the other side of the aisle. my job as chairman is to bring the question to a vote so the committee could make a determination.

as most know, when the congressman made his assertion during the hearing, i could have ruled just that, that she had waived. i felt it inappropriate to do it, recessed the committee hearing, and informed ms. lerner that she was subject to recall after a decision was made. we have consulted and gotten advice with house console. their determination is impartial. they have delivered to us both their opinion and the case law. having now considered the facts and arguments, i believe lois lerner waived her fifth amendment privileges. she did so when she chose to make a voluntary opening statement. ms. lerner's opening statement

referenced the treasury ig report and the department of justice investigation. the assertion she previously had provided -- sorry, and the assertions that she previously provided false information to the committee. she made four specific denials appeared those denials are at the core of the committee investigation in this matter. she stated that she had not done anything wrong, not broken any laws, not violated any irs rules or regulations, and not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee regarding areas about which committee members would have liked to ask her questions. indeed, committee members are still interested in hearing from her, her statement covers almost the entire range of questions we wanted to ask when the hearing began on may 22.

today marks the 37th day since ms. lerner appeared. since that time, i have considered the matter deliberately. i have received letters from lerner's lawyers that presented her arguments clearly and completely. her letter will now be entered into the record without objection, so ordered. we considered and sought appropriate counsel to reach our decision. counsel had her attorney's letters and made their determination and recommendation. and now it is time to put it to a vote. with that, i recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. to date, this investigation has been characterized by a series

of unsubstantiated accusations by members of congress with no evidence to support their claims. and today's preceding is the latest unfortunate example. i often say that i would like our committee to operate more like a courtroom by gathering evidence in a responsible and impartial way. before drawing conclusions or making judgments. if this were a courtroom, the first question to ms. lerner would have been -- how do you plead? ms. lerner would have been able to state her innocence, and she never would have been forced to take the stand, swear an oath, or publicly assert her fifth amendment right. in this case, ms. lerner's attorney wrote to inform the committee before the hearing that his client would exercise her fifth amendment right.

unlike in a courtroom, the chairman issued a subpoena forcing her to appear. made her stand and swear an oath, and challenge her fifth amendment assertion by posing questions to her anyway. so now the chairman wants the committee to conclude as a legal matter that ms. lerner waived her right because she made a statement professing her innocence. if this happened in a courtroom, the judge would likely hold a hearing on this question before making a ruling. counsel would prepare written briefs with legal and his circle precedent before making a determination based on the facts and based on the law. again, this is not happening. the chairman is going about this

in reverse. he is asking the committee to vote on his resolution first without taking basic commonsense measures to help committee members, republicans and democrats, make reasoned and informed decisions. let's look at the evidence now before the committee. exhibit a is the letter from ms. lerner clearly invoking her fifth amendment right. exhibit b is a letter from her council on may 38 citing the precedent by the supreme court, explaining that, and a witness compelled to appear and answer questions does not waive her fifth amendment privilege by giving testimony proclaim her innocence. the chairman never responded to letter to my knowledge or legal

precedents it contains. i ask this the in the record. >> it is already in the record. >> exhibit c stating i do not believe her introductory profession of innocence constitutes a waiver of her fifth amendment rights. i ask that that document be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> exhibit d is a statement from daniel richmond who served as the chief appellate attorney in the united states attorney's office in new york stating, as a matter of law, she did not waive her privilege and would not be found to have done so by a competent at a record. -- by a

competent federal court. >> all inclusions on your list will be included. >> exhibit e is a letter requesting an additional here he was with experts so members can consider this in a responsible way. i ask that document be in the record and i understand it will be. with all this information, what is on the other side? that chairman has a memorandum that he has declined to let other committee members say. the memo is not in the record before us. in my letter on wednesday -- >> would the gentleman please yield before us. the instruction was that it cannot be released publicly since house counsel represents us. you are certainly free to have each individual member as long

as they are bound by the same understanding. our counsel is subject to attorney-client privileged, and you received separate advice from house counsel. that is a decision you make relative to the normal rules. >> i reclaim my time. i try to pay deference to the chairman on two staff memos. this is a memo dated june 26, 2013, 8:07 p.m. i am reading it and will take i am reading it and will take such time as is necessary. i asked you not distribute it widely, like to all

members. the fact is next it says it is reasonably foreseen that a wide distribution could lead to public disclosure. the staff member that gave you this gave you this without a prohibition on any one of your members reading it. he concept would be that members could predict, could seek independent counsel, every member on both sides and go to house counsel and seek an independent decision on their art. we simply were recognized and we did not public disclosure. as you and i would not want published his closure of any attorney representing us. >> are you saying, because i have not divulged one syllable of this to my members. you are saying my members can ave -- >> your members can seek counsel directly and your

members can read it, and suzanne is well aware of that. we are -- you and i may be rusty, but we have both have good counsel. the fact is every single member of the house can seek house counsel, and you did seek and received separate note from house counsel. this only implies not to lead to public disclosure. >> i want to make sure that -- i want it distributed now to our members, since i made a mistake. i was under the impression you were saying that my members could not see it, seeing what they are going to be relied on from counsel. i asked that it be distributed o our members now. and it not be disclosed to the public. > i would caution members if

they want to see any further, they can, but this is attorney-client from which, this is your attorneys of house counsel, but their citings are available to any member. >> i am trying to stay within the bounds that i thought were set. if members want to ask, once they read it, is that out of bounds? you follow what i am saying? in other words, my members are now going to be reading what you depended upon to hold this hearing. >> this is a markup. the resolution is available for amendment. it is distributed. ms. norton has a stripping amendment. the fact is we have had 37 days, plenty of debate. we have soft counsel. i have chosen a resolution even though i had the right to rule,

even if i did not have counsel. this resolution is effectively a ruling of the chair that ms. lois lerner waived in her activity, and we are voting on the ruling of the chair. it is available format amendment. i caution never to use their five minutes. i will not limit debate. this is a markup. it is like any other markup, and i have chosen to do that so my ruling would be published and open to a vote rather than simply the procedural tapering f the chair that otherwise would happen. >> i am almost finished, thank you. on wednesday i asked every member be even the opportunity to hear directly from house counsel and pose any questions have about the legal standards and historical precedents.

the chairman declined to honor my request. here's what may happen if we continue down this path. the republicans could adopt a resolution on a partisan ote. the chairman could force ms. lerner to return and director to answer questions. heard attorney will disagree with the legal basis for the resolution, and ms. lerner will continue to assert the fifth. after which the chairman could schedule a vote to hold her in content and send the entire matter to a court. after that happens, the record before the court will be the record we established today. the committee has held no hearings on this issue. the committee has taken no testimony from any legal experts. the chairman never responded to legal counsel. the chairman never responded to her counsel. chairman declined my request for a meeting to allow members to hear directly from counsel. he chairman chose not to allow

all committee members to review the opinion, and that has just been changed. thank you. the committee adopted no report or other analysis of the applicable legal provisions in the historical precedents. let me close by making clear that i want to hear ms. lerner's testimony. i think her testimony is very, ery important. i agree she has information that is relevant to the ommittees investigation. for example, i want to ask why did she not inform congress in 2012 of the improper practices she discovered in 2011. ut we must respect the constitutional rights of every witness who comes before this committee, and whatever your interpretation of the law is in this instance, we should all agree that this is not a responsible record to put forward because it undermines the credibility of this

committee and the legitimacy of the resolution itself. i request stands, i asked the committee first take the preliminary commonsense step of holding a hearing to listen to legal experts former party members to vote. otherwise as a member of the congress who is sworn to uphold the constitution, i cannot in good conscience support this resolution, and with that i yield act. >> no, i will not hold a hearing. no, i do not agree with your position that you were denied any access to counsel. opinion that was shared with you out of courtesy was an opinion we sought among which means we gave you more than would ordinarily happen. >> when you say we, i want to make sure i understand what you are saying. >> the house counsel information that was shared ith you, we requested and we

shared what we got back with you. >> who is we? >> the majority. the fact is you can seek counsel, every member can seek counsel. having said that, i find it odd that you would decide that we need to make a record before the court. if this were going to a federal judge, the judge would only consider ms. lerner's actual activity and would be making a decision de nova. having said that, i cannot nor would any chairman of either party hold hearings every time there is misbehavior, improper conduct of a witness. you can understand the committee cannot be turned into everyone coming and doing that. ms. lerner was here pursuant to a deposition, a subpoena, and was represented by counsel. >> mr. chairman, one moment.

mr. chairman, i am not trying to make this more difficult than it should be. it is just that i think when we are dealing with -- i'm very sensitive to this constitution, because i would not be here if it was not for it. we are dealing with people's ights, i think we need to make sure that at least -- the only thing i was asking and i know you have denied it, and that is all well and good, the only thing i was asking is we make sure that the members when they vote, they have access to the legal assessments of these arguments. the chairman is the chairman, and so i yield back. > i thank the gentleman. i will hold the record opened the end of the day. does any member wish to speak of the bill?

he gentleman from florida. >> again, from the perspective of being here, a senior member of the panel, i have never seen an instance in which a witness would thwart our responsibility in such an offensive manner. i am saddened that the ranking ember would not work with us on moving forward. he says some things that are correct. he said some things that are dramatically wrong. or so of all, if you hold up the constitution, just open it up, has three distinct branches of government -- a legislative branch, and executive branch, and a judicial branch.

ights are contained at the end in the bill of rights, and we want to comply with those. but in fact, the right of this committee and the congress to conduct its business as set forth by the constitution is being -- is attempted to be thwarted by a government employee. our job -- we were sent here to review the conduct that is clear. our responsibility is very important to conduct oversight and investigations. we are the chief panel in the house of representatives. lois lerner is a federal employee who failed to appear at our request. under the rules of the house and this committee, she was

issued a subpoena. she appeared. she was given the opportunity to exert her fifth amendment. she in fact waived that right by giving her testimony and her position, thumbing her nose at this rightful committee under constitution and our legislative authority. lois lerner is in fact a poster child for thumbing her nose at ongress. i'm telling you, i have absolutely had it with what we have seen, the power of this new at stake. it not in the constitution that there is a fourth branch that can tell us to go to hell. we have a responsibility to investigate what was going on. she has been given her rights.

what the ranking member said is correct. we will follow the process. the decision is this committee today, to act on the resolution, and in fact this individual has thwarted the responsibility of this committee to investigate for er to testify. she will be given the opportunity when she comes back to take the fifth, but in fact we are voting today on the fact that she waved it. that is a committee ecision. e have a right to make that. we should back our chairman for the precedents for the future, and it is important that it should be set. today is a showdown in who is in control of the government and whether we honor the onstitution. the rules of this committee and

our responsibility as members of congress center on behalf of people out there this morning, got up in the middle of the night, work and at hey there taxes and expect us to sit oversee what the bureaucrats are doing. in fact, when you have the financial arm, the irs, of the united states spinning out of control, as we have seen in this instance, with a bureaucrat thumbing her nose at our process, there's something dramatically wrong. i urge the adoption of this resolution. she will have her say. she will have her right to exercise her fifth amendment ight, and the ranking member is correct. she may be held in contempt in the future. again, this is in fact a showdown today between an merging pure rocker c that has spun out of control, and if you do not see it, folks, you're in trouble, and the system is in trouble. i yield back. >> thank you. or what purpose does the lady request recognition?

>> i have an amendment in the nature of the substitute. >> the amendment in the nature of the substitute to the resolution of the committee on oversight and government reform, all offered by ms. orton. >> the memo is considered read. >> thank you. this committee is fond of citing the constitution. i offer this resolution in order to allow us to show we mean it. i agree with the chairman that a hearing here would be unusual, when there is reported this conduct. we do not have a hearing on it every time someone objects. it is also clear that this is a ovel issue and a close question, and all one has to do is to look at the authorities and see how they line up on both sides of when a witness waives her constitutional rights.

both sides are anxious to question lois lerner, because she may be the witness in the nly position to get to the root of where the origin of the controversy involving the irs was. the justice department has itself opened an investigation. ms. lerner took the fifth amendment and issued a short statement proclaiming her innocence. i have looked at the authorities. the reason i offer this amendment in the nature of a substitute is that although i have spent most of my professional life, when i was

ot a public official, either as a practicing lawyer or a professor of law, i have no immediate opinion pro or con nd still do not. only have a few minutes on my own to scant the authorities. i decided to write this last night only upon learning that there would be a vote on this matter. i would have to vote that an american citizen had waived a constitutional right. that is a very heavy burden. learned that there had been correspondence from the ranking

member, that there had been an expert opinion from house counsel. that counsel was regarded as an attorney-client matter, was not available to us. i learned further of course that is lerner's counsel had ritten to the committee to offer his authorities to my that she did not wait for constitutional rights. clearly, wherever you come down on this issue, there are decidedly different precedents n when an american citizen waves her constitutional rights, including her fifth amendment rights. i do not see any basis for the

committee to conclude that the question of waiver is clear and settled on the information before us now. my resolution might well yield no different results from what the chairman seeks through his resolution. but it calls for a hearing, but at the very least, would educate members sufficiently to make them feel comfortable in actually voting that an american citizen had waived a precious constitutional right. the fifth amendment has become perhaps the most unpopular amendment of all the amendments in the bill of rights, but it was one of the favorites of the framers. no court would strictly construe a waiver of any constitutional right without more information than we have

before us now. we are not a court. but i had taught the committee took seriously, even revered the constitution. the fifth amendment has a long nd storied history in this congress. much of it among the most discredited in the history of this body. he point of calling lois lerner was to discover what no other witness can tell us. it is still our -- >> will the gentlelady please wrap up. >> it s still our purpose, i would hope that we could find a way to get to the real point of hearing from her, perhaps by ffering her immunity through some kind of negotiations with her counsel. that is what we all want. voting to waive her constitutional right is a last resort. >> will the gentlelady yield.

i will not be supporting your amendment, but i wanted to make clear, trying to get her testimony, offering immunity, all of that by definition comes after the assertion during the earlier hearing that she had waived. as i said earlier, we are dealing with a motion that originated that she had waived, a decision that i reserved for 37 days-- >> are you saying since she waived, we do not need to discuss whether perhaps she would testify if given mmunity? >> the decision to whether she waived and the decision of

whether they would proffer and all those decisions, quite frankly are not going to happen until after we conclude her testimony, which she began, continued, and then stopped earlier. she is still a witness pending from a recessed hearing, and that is what we are doing today, repairing to go forward with the hearing. >> have you considered offering her immunity so we may discover the evidence received from her? >> i apologies, but there are ome things that cannot be said n an open hearing. >> but to waive her constitutional rights? that is very serious. >> we were all here, or eligible to be here. e have noticed this markup pursuant to the rules. the gentlelady had 37 days in which to seek counsel's. >> 37 days you noticed this

hearing/ >> as to the question of a statement made -- the gentlelady's time is expired. i will now recognize the gentleman from south carolina. >> the prospect of having another hearing seems to resistible accept that that would not disclose one single olitary relevant fact. all facts necessary are already in the record. ms. lerner is not coming back, and i do not need law professors to home for a second hearing and reading the case law. there were not be one additional fact, uncovered at a second hearing. what facts do we have at our isposal? have identified nine separate specific assertions made by lois lerner on may 22, and i

was after she asserted her right against privilege. nine separate assertions, ncluding i have done nothing wrong. i have broken no laws. i have provided no false information to congress. i had violated no irs rules. i've violated no irs relations. and then she authenticated a document. all of this after she info to her right to remain silent, nine separate factual assertions in the authenticating of a document after, with advice to counsel, with the advice of counsel sitting right behind her. she testified to nine separate assertions, and then authenticated a document. mr. chairman, the case law to me is clear. hat is not the way the fifth amendment works. you do not get to tell your side of the story and then

avoid the very process that we have in this system for eliciting the truth, which is cross examination. why do we have a confrontation clause? to my colleagues on the other side? the cross examination is the best tactic for eliciting the truth. every witness has to sit on the tand, and they have to weigh in balance, what are the benefits of saying nothing, which is my right, or what are the benefits of getting my side of the story out? that is what you have to balance, saying nothing versus telling her side of the story. esther chairman, there's no contemplation in the constitution that you tell your side of the story and you are never cross examined. the supreme court agrees with. mr. chairman, these are two quotes -- a witness may not testify and then vote against self-incrimination when questioned about details. in brown versus united states, a witness waives the privilege y voluntary giving

testimony. a denial of activities that might provide a basis for prosecution constitutes a aiver of that privilege. she has a right to remain silent. she could have said nothing. he had a witness this week you did that. we had a witness who said nothing. she did not. she made nine separate factual assertions. and then she authenticated a document. if that is not waiver, if that is not express waiver, then clearly it is implied waiver, and if not implied waiver, what is? if getting your side of it, ine separate facts, and, mr. chairman, i have to add

this. aside from certain factual assertions, this witness volunteered -- and this is important -- she testified that she has done "nothing wrong." that is an amazingly wrong statement. it is a double negative. what she is really saying is i have done everything right. to say i have done nothing wrong is to really say i have done everything right. so, mr. chairman, what possibly could be a broader assertion of fact than to say i have done verything right? i want to say this in conclusion, because my time is almost up.

i have had private conversations with colleagues on the other side, other than to say that i have benefited from their counsel. the way i view this is this is congress asserting its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. yes, she has a constitutional right to remain silent, and she could have invoked it, but she did not. and we have a constitutional obligation to provide oversight. so we could have another hearing. there is not going to be one more fact that is part of this record, not one. we will bring a law professor to say she waived, you will bring one to say that she did not, and we will be right where we are today. all the facts that we are going to have our here right now. nine separate factual assertions. if that is invoking your right to remain silent, then there is no such thing as waiver, no such thing. >> the gentleman yields

back. for what purpose does the entleman rise? >> i wish to speak to the resolution. with the gentleman be speaking to the amendment or the resolution? >> the gentleman is recognized to speak to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlelady from the district of columbia in regular order. >> could i ask that my time has been restored? >> no, he took it. > thank you. i wish to support the amendment offered by the gentlelady from the district because i think ctually there are more facts to be heard and there are other points of view to be heard. what we are about today is not to prosecute lois lerner, ably though our colleague from south

carolina seems to be doing. it seems to ensure the constitutional rights of a citizen. mr mica referred to her as a ureaucrat thumbing her nose at congress, and that is what this is about. that is not what this is about. this is first and foremost it was lerner, a citizen, invoking one of the most sacred privileges and tried in the bill of rights, her fifth amendment right to protect herself. the record will show which he was summoned she resisted him and she invoked her fifth amendment right. she came here under subpoena, a partisan issued subpoena, not supported by our side. against her will. and she made a statement and then refuse to answer any questions, and was dismissed by the chairman come up properly so. mr. gowdy would have you believe the fact that she made

any statement constitutes a waiver of her constitutional right, not just self-incriminating. i beg to differ. a slot is very clear, that the fact that she made a statement does not somehow constitute a waiver. there's a famous case during a different era, united states vs. hogue in which mr. hogue made a statement. i am not so engaged. i will not so engage in the future. i am not a spy or saboteurs. and then invoke the fifth amendment. the court found that did not constitute a waiver, just like this case, lois. another case, the supreme court was crystal clear that it is a very high standard you have to meet before you can determine that someone in fact has waived their fifth amendment. i think the record is quite clear ms. lois intended from the beginning to invoke her

fact amendment and protect herself as an american citizen as she is entitled to do. i would, too. if we do this today, every american citizen is at risk who is ever summoned before this committee, and it could be construed, as though i am sure hat is not the intent, that by insisting she appear under subpoena and having her at the witness table, one observer could claim she could claim a constituted entrapment. i'm sure not that is what our intent was, but i would put out that the d.c. bar ethics code says when someone has invoked the fifth amendment, it is wrong to haul them before a committee, and the word they use is, if the only purpose to be served by doing that is to pillory them, that is the verb, which invokes images of

different eras in american history that the fifth amendment was designed to prevent from recurring. like the salem witch trials. where people were pilloried and worse. i believe that if we pass this resolution, we are trampling on the rights of an american citizen him and that trumps everything. that trumps the need for her testimony to my that trumps her status as a federal employee, that trumps her status as an official at the irs. if we are not about protecting the rights of american citizens, what are we about as members of congress? i urge colleages to put aside politics here. i urge my colleagues to go carefully about what we are

about to do. you may make a small political gain by passing this resolution, with long-term costs, and you will erode the onfidence in the people in what we are about, and there is an institutional commitment all of us need to be concerned about. and i plead with my colleagues to think carefully, why not take some time and have a hearing so we can air this out? i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman rom tennessee. >> i rise to speak in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank the actions of the chairman in bringing up this resolution, which are entirely appropriate, and i understand they are bringing done under the advice of house counsel and i wish to second their marks by my colleague mr. gowdy.

i spent many years as a law year and a judge coming to congress and spent the last7 1/2 years trying felony criminal cases. every case i have read about the fifth amendment would not have allowed and in fact as a lawyer i never would have advised a client that they could give a statement under oath and then plead the fifth. as a judge, i would never allow a defendant in my court to testify and make a statement and emphatically declare their innocence and then plead the fifth at that point. that would make a mockery out f the fifth amendment. and i think it is accurate to say the record will show that i was a judge who leaned very much in favor of defendants.

i was never a prosecutor, and i did everything possible as a judge to bend over backwards to make sure that all defendants appearing in my court got every right that they were entitled o. but lois lerner came in here and on nine separate occasions declared her innocence or strongly asserted that she had done nothing wrong, epeatedly. i cannot allow witnesses to testify under oath and then plead the fifth to keep from being questioned or cross-examine. it is not fair, it is not consistent with the history of our country and judicial history. the key here is that committee is operating under rules different from other committees. most other committees in the congress do not swear witnesses

and place them under oath before they testify. lois lerner came here under oath and he essentially told her side of the case and then pled the fifth, denying them i self, mr. gowdy, and other members any opportunity to question her or cross-examine her. so i rise in opposition or speak in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, and i believe the actions of the chairman in bringing forth this underlying resolution are entirely appropriate and consistent with all the legal precedents and history in this country. thank you very much. >> i thank the gentleman. i take a short moment to respond to my friend from virginia, who spoke so

eloquently about the sanctity of the fifth amendment. i think it is important that somebody be represented by counsel, and ms. lerner was. it is more important through realize that most important that she made voluntary decisions, not just a decision to make an opening statement hat made claims and assertions on point, but then to answer additional questions after she nvoked her fifth-amendment privilege to answer additional questions. i am not an attorney, even hough i serve on judiciary and have this obligation here today. is why we sought counsel and took the time. it is the result of recognizing there is both a legal precedent for this, and many people here

have not taken the time for it over the last 37 days, but the important thing is the respect for the constitution is also respect for the fact that if somebody comes and gives testimony, they become subject to cross-examination. and the decision here today is to my did she have testimony, and did she choose to take offense,, and is she subject to hat cross-examination? i know everybody here in this room, if accused of a crime or even just being sued a month they would want a right to cross-examination. we the people would like to cross--examine her. i thank the gentleman for yielding back. > the gentleman is recognized. >> i think this is an ncredibly serious question put to this committee. all of us want to hear what she has to say and what information she may bring. we want to do our job and get on with the investigation that underlies this. where hopefully just as concerned about aching sure this committee upholds the constitution, particularly, the fifth amendment rights on any citizen matter what we think of the citizen's earlier activities or statements. i am concerned that this unusual for sitting, that she as subpoenaed her attorney

made it clear that she was going to plead the fifth, and et he continued to force her o come in before the committee. s mr. connolly said, what for? to pillory her? in the judicial process, and i think mr. connolly made it

clear, that is not the usual way to proceed. in this bar it would be considered a questionable practice to put somebody in that kind of an untenable situation. i'm concerned from the outside of what that was about, about spectacle or about trying to move this matter forward on that. i am also concerned that we are dealing with an issue of law here. you're asking this group of non-lawyers to make a decision based on a consultative legal question, and it is not as cut as dried as some wish it were. we have had some days where we relight the chairman was going to move in this direction to seek out some advice and we got advice on both sides. some experts, on either side of the issue, and it deserves a full exposition here as the amendment would do of having experts come in and breathe us and testify as to what underlies their opinions. the formal counsel stated that that introduction to the committee was a profession of her innocence, offered prior to he commencement of

questioning. it contained no fax relating to the subject matter and denied wrongdoing. he would not recommend that she be brought in for contempt or found that she had waived her rights. another expert from columbia makes it clear his opinion that her willingness and response to the requests that she authenticate her prior statements deprive her to the fifth amendment privilege, which did not happen. her willingness to authenticate them to admit the prior statements are made without concessions of veracity is not testimony of substance to the prior state and straight he gave a siding for that. there's conflicting information on that. lthough the chairman indicates members were allowed to see his requests for house counsel opinion, i am looking at the

e-mail that went back-and-forth that says i says i would also ask that you not distribute it widely, " like to all of your embers." y question is, which of your members here, would you like not to see this, would you like not to be fully briefed before they made this decision? which members have different status than members on your side, whom you were willing to share this in advance? hat is entirely unreasonable and unfair and should not happen, and i find that his ffenses to people who might be included in that category. we have not had ample time that an exposition of facts.

ow is mr. cummings likely to determine -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> in a second. the ramifications are bad for the house. i would ask that you not distribute it widely like to all of your members. i would yield only of the gentleman wants tell us which one of all these members in the majority would not want to see the report? >> the chairman yields? >> for that purpose. >> the gentleman should not have to answer that question. >> i am sorry that you are offended -- >> if you are not going to answer, i claim my time-- >> this was an opinion given to the majority on my request. his was the chairman's request. >> it was an opinion to the members of the house --

>> no, that was not correct. >> who did you not want to see that report? >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> legitimate excuses -- the gentleman's excuses have waned, too. >> losing the focus of our purpose. i have great regard for the gentlelady from washington who has looked from the perspective of both sides of the equation. we are doing a great deal of talk about the characterization f lois lerner and the idea that somehow we are here attempting to embarrass the witness. i go back to the point, we are not here with regard to lois

lerner. we are here because there are american citizens who were affected by the agency that she oversaw who used her authority n the irs to what we believe to be an impressive fashion against what could be their constitutional rights, and, potentially, any criminal fashion. and so, what we really have, we are engaged in a civil proceeding. and to the extent to which lois lerner has rights that she can invoke using her fifth amendment, they were to any ultimate question that she may be accountable to any criminal for, not here. what she says here may be relevant, and there's plenty of history with regard to that issue. but let's go to the facts of what happened here. we are here on a civil proceeding, and we do have a responsibility, and oversight responsibility, to address that which we just articulated, it is the responsibility to assure that the rights of citizens have not been oppressed by the irs. lois lerner does not have any right to refuse to answer questions before this committee unless they would in fact incriminate her. she may in fact -even-and it is not uncommon in the civil

process of law, for a person to come in and be deposed and under normal course of questions go through, she has competent counsel, and there are questions that will be answered, and counsel will take a particular question and say hat goes to the potential, that it might be a meaningful basis that it could incriminate her criminally, and there is a broad reading of that. i suspect that lois order comes back here, she will invoke the fifth amendment to quite a few. in fact, everything. the fact of the matters, we have changed the dynamic here. with competent counsel, some of the best attorneys available, and lois learner is an attorney herself. she voluntarily changed the

dynamic. when she chose to use the foreman, where she was aware there was going to be a ational forum for her to declare whatever it is that she anted to do, and she used this ccasion very specifically, and the gentleman from south carolina but through an eloquent way the number of ways she opened the door. i have in my hands here the letter from counsel. we knew what she was doing why invoking the fifth grade all she had to do was sit there and say " i invoke the fifth." and in case, we would not be here today. she was the one who put into the record, the subject matter. she opened the door to the subject matter. she is the one that included the reference to the i.g. report. she is the one that brought the i.g.'s report into this.

she is the one who made these statements, i did not break any laws, i did not violate any irs rules or regulations, i did not give any false testimony to this or any other congressional committee. with respect all of the things that had just previously been identified. that is the subject matter in which she put it into play. that is a voluntary waiver. nto determination on her rivate, with counsel sitting right behind her. she made a choice to use this form for purposes. and i ask this committee to remember why we are here, not for lois lerner, but to make sure that we stand up for the ights of those who have been oppressed by the irs.

i conclude my comments by saying most lerner is not surrendering any fifth amendment rights, as we can see what is happening going down line. to the extent she will invoke fifth amendment privilege and we would hold her in contempt, it will go before a qualified court of law. and there it will be brief, and there they will have the best of attorneys if it gets to the matter, and prior to that there may be a decision for other kinds of activities the committee would make that would make that issue not relevant. but as to today, as to this moment, it was lerner opened the door and she cannot have it both ways. and i believe at this point in time, this is a simple resolution which is simply saying that we have the ability to ask her to come back to answer questions with regard to the issues that she opened the door to. and she may ultimately than invoke her fifth amendment, and we will be back for further proceedings, but this is not something that violates her rights. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

>> the question is on agreeing o the amendment offered by the lady from the district of columbia -- all those in favor will signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> no. >> n the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. i did not recognize you. are you requesting a roll call vote? >> i am asking for five minutes o speak. >> you will have five minutes on the resolution. >> i am asking for a roll call vote. >> the clerk will call the roll.

>> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> mr. mchenry? mr. mchenry votes no. mr. jordan? mr. jordan votes no. mr. chaffitz? mr. chaffitz votes no. mr. mosh votes no. mr. mann votes no. r. gowdy votes no. mr. hastings? r. woodall votes no. mr. massey votes no. mr. collins votes no. r. meadows votes no? mr. desantos votes no.

mr. cummings votes aye. s. norton votes aye. mr. connoly votes aye. r. cartwright votes aye. ms. duckworth votes aye. r. cardenas votes aye. r. jordan, you are not recorded. > mr. hastings, how do you ote? >> no.

>> mr. hastings votes no. >> does anybody else think recognition for the vote? the clerk will report. > 20 nos, 16 ayes. >> the amendment is not agreed to. ince we have a vote on the floor, we will stand in recess -- we will do one more on the underlying -- we will stand in recess until five minutes after the last vote.

>> pursuant to the previous nnouncement, the committee will come to order. is there anyone here who wishes to speak on the resolution? i'll be patient. i'll recognize myself. lest we lose the time. today we have had ample debate

on the question of a traightforward resolution, did ms. lois lerner on may 30, 013, in all or part, proceed after asserting her fifth amendment privilege and if so, did she waive? that will be the question to be decided in the vote that will come momentarily. it is my assertion that she did. having heard the debate, i have not changed my position. and i will reserve pending -- for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> well, mr. chairman, as you know -- >> would you like to move to strike the last word on the resolution before us? > i would, please. >> the gentleman is recognized or five minutes. >> thank you, sir. i do want to note for the

record i originally requested time on the amendment. that time has been denied me. but -- and nothing i can do about that now. i do agree this is a serious question before the committee. we have -- we have balancing interests here. one is we certainly need to be able to call witnesses before this committee and expect the truth. i think that's at the very core of our ability to conduct meaningful oversight and reasonable oversight. and that certainly is -- is essential, especially this committee and the role that it plays. on the other hand, there is a constitutional right in the fifth amendment to have a witness avoid self-incrimination. and that's -- that's extremely important as well. and i for one believe i know the gentleman from florida spoke earlier today. he was seemingly offended that american citizens might come before this committee and thumb

their nose at their government. i think that is a constitutional right to thumb your nose at the government. and i think considering the fact that congress' favorability ratings at 6% there are other americans that would use a different finger with respect to congress today. >> is the gentleman referring to the upcoming parades? >> i'm not sure what you mean. >> don't you get waved at in your parade? >> oh, yeah, obviously. reclaiming my time. but i think in light of the scandals not only with the i.r.s. but with the n.s.a., i think a lot of americans seriously doubt the integrity of some of heir governmental institutions including our own. but this -- this hearing does not set the precedent that the gentleman from florida spoke of earlier. we have not had a hearing on this. we have not -- we have not done

the meaningful investigation that would -- would explain to the court and look. we assume that there will be a ontempt citation issued by this congress. it will be appealed to the court. and at some point, the court will look, and they will say how did congress arrive, how did the committee first of all on government reform arrive at this decision that ms. lerner was in contempt? and they will look at the underlying record. that's what they'll look at. what -- what is the reasonableness and what is the thoroughness of congress' inquiry? i disagree with the gentleman's earlier statement, the chairman's statement that we have had a lot of public debate about this. we have not had debate in this committee over this. we have not had one word. we've had debate over this motion. but we have not had witnesses. we have not had constitutional scholars come in and inform the decisions of the members. you have a lot of nonlawyers here, nonconstitutional

lawyers. and they will find the decision was based on political considerations and not on meaningful inquiry and thorough oversight. so i think what we're doing here today will -- will doom our efforts to hold ms. lerner accountable. because we haven't done the oversight. we haven't provided the underpinnings for our decision to be upheld at the court level. we're playing into their hands by not having the hearings. because i think we could -- look, i think you got some votes on this side if this was handled correctly. that you would have -- you would have people who justifiably agree with the way -- at least in our -- artful way that ms. lerner came forward and asserted her fifth amendment rights. but i think that's all being wiped out by a political process. this is supposed to be a legislative process. and an investigative process. and it has been none of that.

we have not had the meaningful, deliberative process that i think would give weight to our decision. that's -- that's a failing of this process today. this will not be presidential. -- precedential. how a witness must act before this committee. we're not going to get that from this process because there has been no underlying credibility lent to this process. so i will vote against this. not on the merits, but the lack of process. i yield back. >> thank you. i now move -- >> you indicated at the beginning of this portion that we would get time.

>> i never said all members. we recognize the member. >> this bickering is an embarrassment. it's more like showing off. it is the same grandstanding we have seen repeatedly in this committee. the chairman continues to focus this committee on divisive hearings rather than identifying solutions to making reforms to government programs and agencies. mr. chairman, and set up reading up a resolution to challenge a person's right to plead the fifth, why aren't we bringing forward a resolution to require the irs to bring their 501(c) four regulation primarily into compliance with federal law. this is no longer just about lois lerner.

there are clearly problems at the irs. that much is clear. but mr. chairman, instead of this resolution, why aren't we following up with the nine recommendations that the inspector general already made to guarantee that the targeting that happens to both conservative and liberal groups never happens again. mr. chairman, these are the issues the american people want us to focus on. not partisan pickering and gridlock. until we focus on solutions, congress will continue to be held and the lowest of regard among the american public. i for one do not want to be part of caring this institution down, but building it out. the american people are rightfully upset with us. >> will the gentleman yield? >> no i will not. the american people are rightfully upset with us. it is because of what we are doing here today.

if this resolution were to pass, what sort of precedent are we setting? who are we to take away anyone's constitutional rights? this resolution does nothing to fix it. this process is a completely improper. i will oppose the motion. i will not yield. i have not yielded. >> we are in regular order it is the gentleman's time. >> it is the gentleman's time. >> there are nine provisions within the inspector general's

report that we have not taken any time to follow up on or implement. we have heard from the new acting commissioner of the irs that they are regulation is in fact out of compliance with federal law. we have taken no action to bring forward a resolution directing the irs to do its job to update that regulation to make sure it is in compliance with federal law. there is an agreement on both sides that it needs to be fixed. all i'm asking for is that us, the members of this body, do our job. i am here as a representative of my constituents. they didn't send me here to take away the rights of people. they sent me here to represent them and make sure their government does a better job in serving them. today, mr. chairman, this resolution does the no service.

>> will the gentleman yield to the chair? >> yes. >> i take no exception to the right to your opinion. i might remark that this resolution is on whether or not the lady waved her rights. we have no intention of taking away rights. i might also mention that a later itemization of contempt would be something to consider. i would only say that she is in a consideration of waving. >> may i reclaim my time? that is not conclusive. there is nothing in conclusive in the legal opinion of the question of the witness's fifth amendment.

it says had they continued with testimony, and responded, that is not with him and his did. they an opening statement, they refuse to answer any further, and they were excused by the chair. that alone should be why this resolution is not passed, and why we should get back to the work of what this committee should really be working on. >> we will not go to the gentlelady from wyoming. >> this entire committee has been put on notice of the concern that ms. lerner waived her constitutional right in concern of self-incrimination. she gave testimony, i move the previous question. >> the previous question

ordered, all say aye, all opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ahe resolution is agreed to. rollcall being ordered, the clerk will call the roll. mr. issa. mr. mica. mr. turner. mr. duncan. mr. mchenry. mr. jordan. mr. chafe its. -- mr. chaffetz.

mr. lankford. mr. mosh. mr. meehan. mr. gaudi. mr. ferrin told. mr. hastings. mr. woodall. mr. massey. mr. collins. mr. meadows aye. mr. bent avolio aye. mr. desantis aye. mr. cummings no. no.norton mr. tierney no. mr. clay no. mr. lynch no. mr. cooper no. mr. connolly no. .r. cartwright

>> no. >> mr. poe can. >> no to mccarthy. >> voting no to what? >> i'm voting no to the mccarthy-ite tactics that our site is not even allowed to vote, so i'm voting no. >> continue. >> ms. duckworth no. mr. davis no. mr. welch no. mr. cardin us. horseferdfurred -- no.

>> how is mr. mchenry recorded? aye. is recorded as voting woodall?. >> not recorded. >> is there anyone else who seeks recognition to vote? >> sir, you are recorded voting aye. >> the clerk will report. >> 22 aye's, 17 no's. >> the resolution is agreed to.

the resolution finding lois lerner waived her fifth amendment privileges on may 22, 2013, is approved, and we stands adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> tomorrow morning, a live

discussion of the supreme court decision during its 2012 term and also justice john roberts as he sits down with harvie wilkinson. to talk about the constitution. linda greenhouse and other supreme court scholars. follow "washington journal" on c-span. >> american history tv the 150thes anniversary of gettysburg. click they were recruited in the fire halls of new york city. to the firemen of new york city, they answered the call and came

to duty in the army as union soldiers. 350 have been out here and they will suffer 46% casualties. at the dedication ceremony, the honorable robert b noon he said this. he said, there are times in the lives of nation when there is even a small number of men who will arouse in others the highest and noblest sentiments and spur a mind to a greater degree of the chivalrous eloquence of even the most gifted oratory. click the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, live coverage beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern with historians through the day including -- later, your calls and tweets for the author does -- the author

of "of gods and generals." then a commemorative ceremony with the keynote speech or. then we will end the day at 9:15 p.m. with civil war institute director taking your calls and tweets. you can submit questions and comments today at facebook.com /cspanhistory. >> a day after the senate passed their version of an immigration bill, members of the house gang of seven representatives discuss the process of an immigration postedassing the house. by bloomberg government, this is about one hour. >> thank you. i am peter cook with bloomberg television. thank you all for being here, media representatives, c-span, bloomberg television covering this event. we appreciate your interest. it gives you a sense of how important this is. this is an issue of the

incredible importance to the country, business community, bloomberg, to the nation as a whole, and we are lucky to have two people right at the heart of the debate in congress and house of representatives, two members of the gang of seven who have been negotiating a bipartisan compromise for the last few years up on capitol hill, behind closed doors most of the time. at a time when reporters are racing all over the hill to find members of the gang of seven, we are lucky enough to have them here on stage.

for me as a reporter, it is great for me to find out your sense of where things go from here. congresswoman zoe lofgren from california, she is on the judiciary committee, ranking member on the immigration subcommittee. she represents silicon valley, of course, which has a big stake in the outcome of these debates. and we have republican mario diaz-balart of florida, a critical player in these issues, someone that the leadership has put to an immigration. i went to begin by letting you all know that at about 9:00 time, we will turn it over to the audience for questions. congresswoman, i begin with you. your immediate reaction to what happened in the senate yesterday and how that changes the debate about to play out in the house of representatives? >> first, thank you for the introduction and point out that we do not consider ourselves a gang. we are a working group. we have been working for the past several years to try to reach consensus in the house on a bipartisan bill.

i was happy for the senate that they were able to have such a large vote for reform measures. i know it took a tremendous effort, compromise to reach that point. i think it really cheered up the country in a way to see that the senate could get something done, pass a bill out. there are many good things in that bill. certainly, if it were put up for a vote in the house, i could vote for that bill. mario, i am sure, will talk into greater depth, i do not get into the republican conference meetings, but i have heard for some time from my colleagues across the aisle, the intent to

have a different approach in the house, not merely to take up the senate bill. that has given us added incentive in our working group to try to come up with the product from the house that the conservatives in the house could embrace and that would let us move forward. i am cautiously optimistic, but obviously, there are many challenges >> i think it's a very important step in the right direction. it's no secret that for many, many years both republican and democratic leaderships have use immigration as a political tool. there have been ample opportunities where republicans could have solved the issue, didn't, democrats could have solved the issue, didn't. so it's great to see a real serious effort and a bipartisan effort. because the only way we're going to solve something that's so

controversial and so difficult if it's done in a bipartisan way. so i think it's a very important step in the right direction. i think if anything, we're now more encouraged than ever. realizing in the house we're going to have some serious challenges. it's a more complicated place, it's bigger, more individuals. but i ultimately think the american people demand to fix what everybody recognizes is a system that's broken. >> put you right on the spot. when do you roll out your plan in response to what came out in the senate and does this vote put pressure on you to produce a bipartisan package that can be considered on the floor? >> we are -- the bill is back

from leg counsel. it's not as long as the senate's bill but it's long. and the members are in the process of going through word by word line by line to assure ourselves that it matches up with the agreement that is we made. that's a tedious process but it's a necessary we've never set a deadline for ourselves but it's clear that we're not going to have a vote in the house next week we're in recess the week after. i mean, there is time for this product to be part of the process. i'm on the judiciary committee as you mentioned.

we have taken up a series of small bipartisan bills that are in some cases bizarre. we have not touched the whole issue of how you get 11 million people right with the law. how are you going to get those people to comply and move forward? and that is something that we hope we'll be able to add value on in our working group. >> you can't deal with what is evidently a broken immigration system without dealing with the reality. again, whether you like it or not, whether you care to admit it or not there are millions of people in this country who are here, who in many cases have been here for many, many years. we have to deal with that reality. ignoring that reality does not make it go away. so i agree with what zoe said. that's one of the things that we have to deal with. the other thing is -- >> let me jump in. does that mean that republicans in the house are going to have to consider some piece of

legislation that includes a pathway to citizenship for those 11 million? or is there something short of that that you think can clear the house and also satisfy the senate? >> here's what i think we need to do. first recognize that the folks are here. i think if we don't get into general policy areas of discussion. i think it would be very counterproductive for our future as a country to have a group of people who are here who are here forever in essence permanently, and potentially even legally, who those who might want to really put their hearts on -- their hands on their heart, pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states and everything that symbolizes to have a group of people here permanently legally who could never do that i think is counterproductive to our future. now, having said that, you have to balance that with making sure that we do not violate something which is frankly sacred the rule of law.

can you reach that balance? you know, i think we have in our discussions. so it's doable. if you wonder if i'm not specifically answering your question, i'm not. but i think it's very important to understand what the policy ramifications are and can we reach a good medium point that satisfies the rule of law, making sure we don't violates the rights of folks who have been doing everything legally or will be doing things legally in the future, with making sure that we don't have a group of people who are always in the shadows and who can never aspire those who really want to aspire to be part of this great country. >> speaker boehner was asked about your efforts. was he encouraging of those efforts and he basically said yes. you should continue your work. it will be part of the

discussion going forward. should we take speaker boehner at his word? will your plan when it emerges get that kind of conversation from the republican leadership? >> speaker boehner has been very clear that he thinks this is an issue that has to be fixed, it has to be fixed now, this year hopefully. and i think, frankly, when all when push comes to shove, i hate to sound -- look, when push comes to shove, i think something very similar to what we have been working on is the only thing that has a shot of passing the house, of getting bipartisan support, and having a shot to get to go to the president's desk. and the speaker clearly wants to solve the issue. i think we hopefully will have a viable option. >> i would just add -- obviously i didn't vote for john boehner to be speaker. he's --

>> there's still time though. there will be ample opportunity. >> he's a conservative republican. i'm not. but he is also the speaker of the whole house and he met with me and encouraged me, which i thought was very gracious. he met with the hispanic caucus, all democrats, last week, to encourage their efforts. so i think he's doing obviously his best to reach out to both sides of the aisle. his is not an enviable position. this is -- i mean, there are very strong opinions, pro and con in the house. but i think that we as a country need a path forward on this. we know -- no one is satisfied with the status quo. we're all going to go home next week and -- probably this evening, and meet with our constituents. and i don't think anybody is going to say just keep it the way it is, it's so darned great. we need to fix this. >> senator chuck schumer yesterday after the conclusion

of the senate vote of course not afraid to offer some advice to the house of representatives. he said at the end of the day that is going to have to adopt what the senate has passed. what do you make of that? why not just bring -- have the house consider the legislation that passed? negotiated over six months time with a bipartisan group in the senate. why isn't that the solution? >> as i said, i could vote for the senate bill. but that doesn't mean that every

other member of the house could vote for the senate bill. i think the republican members have been clear for some time that they want some variations on that. we're trying our best to work in a bipartisan way to come up with an alternative plan that's also very sound. and i think we will succeed in that. and this is the dance of legislation. the senate in the end likely will not get everything that they want and the house will not get everything that they want. that's the way things work in the legislative process but if we do our job diligently, we will be able to come up with a measure that secures the border, that provides for enforcement of a workable law, that meets the needs of the american economy, that meets the needs of the american families. >> if that senate bill came to the house floor would you be able to support it? >> you know, one of the things that i have not done and won't do -- because understanding that this is a very sensitive issue is draw lines in the sand of whether i will support something or i will not support something. i think there are parts of the senate bill that i really like, there are parts of the senate

bill that make me take a step back. but here's -- i am extremely grateful for those in the senate knowing how difficult it is -- and by the way, knowing how much criticism you get when you take on an issue that's this controversial. so i'm very grateful that they've done that. there are in our efforts and we have seen that in the senate efforts, there are genuine policy disagreements. and they're genuine. and they're not evil people. there are serious policy implications. so i think the way that we're going to pass legislation in the house is by what we're doing, which is talking to everybody. making sure that we try to deal with those legitimate policy concerns. there are some people in the extremes that are always going to be more satisfied -- they're going to want to stir things up

and not want to pass anything. that's not who we have to deal with. we have to deal with the genuine policy concerns. i think the senate bill is a very good first effort. is it perfect? no. we think our bill is a lot better. is it perfect? no. but i think ultimately we hopefully will reach a conclusion. hopefully we can go to conference, hopefully we can deal with the differences and come up with a bill and zoe stated what i think i said as well, what are some of the key issues that have to be solved. and i think there are a lot of good people of good will of either party, both parties, that wanted to find a genuine solution that's enforcible, helps our economy, protects the rule of law, protects our border and deals with the folks that are here. >> you all have been very careful throughout this process

not to share too many details along the way so i'm going to try to press you on that. can you at least give us a sense if you compare what's cleared the senate with what you are working on where are the areas of biggest disagreement. detailed as you can be, broad brush strokes. but where are the areas of tension between what you all are working on and what the senate has passed? >> you're right. we haven't shared a lot of details. >> there's always an opportunity. >> i think it's best to reveal the details when the bill is introduced. and we have been -- it's an interesting process that we've been through and it's the only process like this in my many years in the house where we have had members themselves sitting around a table hour after hour we have hundreds of member hours into this process going over several years discreetly. we met for three years and nobody in the press even knew we were meeting. we would have 25 people going in two or three times a week. and we did that -- >> we all want to find that room. >> sam johnson would bring the food one week and i would bring food the next week. and we did it because we wanted to make sure we understood the policy details. and you needed to be able to do that in a discreet way.

one of the things we pledged to each other was that we would be confidential until it was time to reveal it. and we've all been faithful to that pledge to each other. and i think that's helped by the trust that we built up with each other. we don't agree on every single thing but we're trying to sort through the differences so that we can have a solid plan that we can defend. and if you overlaid my voting record with that of judge carter you wouldn't find a lot of overlay. he as very conservative guy from texas who i have learned is a very solid person who i don't agree with on everything but

that doesn't mean that we couldn't craft something together. so he disagreed on nine things, you should work on the tenth if you can and that's what we're trying to do. >> and we've purposely, one of the reasons that we've been so careful is we purposefully wanted to keep the politics out of it. we don't want folks out there to start using an issue that may or may not be in the bill to start stirring things up. so we said let's try to see if we can agree among ourselves. and if we can then we have something to talk about. we didn't know if we were going to be able to agree on everything because it's a very diverse group. and low and behold frankly it's been a very honorable process. the fact that you have people who disagree who have campaigned against each other and yet nothing has come out, nothing has been used against anybody

involved in this for political reasons. so it's been an interesting process. >> let's talk about a couple specifics, at least get your personal views on some of these issues that were hot button issues in the senate and again to the extent you can tell us what you think about -- let's talk about border security. do we need 40,000 more border patrol agents to make sure the southern border of the united states is in fact as solid as it can be? >> we need what we need. we need to enforce the borders. we need to secure the borders. we need to do it in a way that's real, that is enforcible, and we have to have mechanisms to make sure that it's done. you know, that's up for debate. however, i think there's a consensus -- around the country not only mooge the members -- that the united states can't be the only country in the planet who can't determine who comes in and who leaves. and that there are ways to do that and ways that people will understand that are real, that are enforcible. and the specifics of what that is, i don't think we need to get into right now. but i think there's a consensus that whatever we have to do to make sure that the united states

is secure, that our borders are as secure as possible -- and that includes, by the way, interior security, and that also a big part of that is having a visa system that works. because without those aspects, you can do all you want on the border but if you don't have a visa system that works or if you don't have an interior security system that works it's all for naught. so there's got to be a security system that's enforcible and enforced. >> this bipartisan group, we got luis gutierrez and xavier becerra, myself, not conservatives dealing with conservative republicans but there is agreement that if you craft an immigration system that actually works for the country, you need to enforce it. and there's no disagreement between the parties on that point.

>> $46 billion for border enforcement. >> we're not going to get into the specifics on that. they came in with a visa and overstayed. so i think you need to take a look at the whole picture. we're not going to get into details of the amount of money or criticize our senate colleagues because they worked so hard to get a bipartisan bill. but you need to have robust enforcement if you're going to have an enforcible situation. >> if i may add something. pretty soon you understand that in order to secure the borders you have to have a visa system that works. you have to have an interior system that call it an employee verification system that works. you have to deal with border security. all of a sudden you realize, these things are all interlinked and that's why it is such a complex difficult issue. because again, it's not that we like or don't like it.

a lot of these issues are clearly interlinked. and if you don't fix one you're not fixing any of them. and again that just adds to the complexity. >> i remember when i was chairing the immigration subcommittee we had dr. richard lands and the southern baptist was one of the witnesses. i quote him because i thought it was such a great line. i don't want to steal his line. but his testimony was that for many years the united states had two signs one said no trespassing and the other said help wanted. and people said you should do this the right way and we all agree with that but we have about 1.7 million undocumented migrant farm workers in the country. >> i want to ask about the visas. but one quick question on the price tag. how surprised with you on the

cbo score and is it the goal of the group that you also have an end product that reduces the deficit? >> obviously -- i wasn't actually surprised that it was a positive score. in fact, in the prior efforts for immigration reform we had positive scores as well. it is our hope that we will have a great score. we -- you can't send your bill to cbo until it's done. so that will be happening as soon as we finalize the final portions of it. but i expect that we will have a good score. because immigration is great for america. it builds the economy. i'll show you, silicon valley, in my home, half the startups in silicon valley were started by somebody born in another country.

that's a job generator and it helps create wealth in america. it's a great thing for us. >> it's also one of the things that we have to remember is that it wasn't a surprise for me either, by the way. >> a good selling point to members of your caucus? >> zoe and i have said here and we say it everywhere. without having a bill that we're sure that will help the economy, there's nothing to talk about. so that is always a big part of it. now, the negative aspect. ok? what people always harp about are the fact that is we have these people that are here and say whatever you want to say about them, unskilled. they're already here. those folks are here. so in other words, we're not talking about bringing in 10 or 11 million people. we're talking about those people are already here. and if you can then bring them out of the shadows, make sure that they're doing everything legally, have an earned process. if you can make sure that they're paying all their taxes,

if you can make sure that they're going to have to pay fines, et cetera, they're already here. and part of the thing that escapes in all the rhetoric out there when you hear people -- and again i'm not being critical because there are important policy decision. but one of the things that it kind of is forgotten in a lot of this debate is that the status quo, when you hear people saying we have to enforce laws because we have illegal people. what we don't have is a system that works for our economy, for our national security, and so i don't think any of us were surprised with the scoring because the so-called negative we already have. the positives that you have is having an organized system that works, borders that are secure, you know who comes in and who leaves. those are the positive things. the fact that people are going to be paying taxes, we know how about bringing in 10 or 11 million people. we're talking about those people are already here. and if you can then bring them out of the shadows, make sure that they're doing everything legally, have an earned process.

how satisfied are you? right now, is a voluntary system. a big leap to go across the country. >> we will not talk about the bill. i have resisted the deployment for many years. we worked to keep the e-verify bill off of the house floor.

my position was that if you verified the agriculture workforce, you would find out something we already know. two thirds don't have their documents and then american agriculture collapses. so you have not solved a problem there. with a, if we come up workable system to meet the economic needs of america. i think it e-verify will be part of the enforcement system. on aeds to be workable contingent system. can now do it with a cell phone. it needs to be something that is doable for american businesses. the bigger problem is in the database. fore is an error rate who come of the people

in are actually american. that ifan error rate you transpose did across the entire, that a lot of americans. we need to work to get the if anse better, but american is dinged, they need to have rights and not lose their job. working through that. i think that we can work through that. and i have reached the conclusion personally that if we come up with this workable system, we except that it's going to be enforced and it will likely be part of it. we have to have a workable system and it has to be enforceable and unforced. which is why understand how difficult it is.

the difficult thing is coming up with solutions that work for our business, the economy, secure our borders, and protect the rule of law. that's why it's been a very lengthy difficult process. but i think we're going to get there. >> how about h-1b? high skilled born workers? technology companies, others say they are missing some of these people and can't find these people here in the u.s. would be helpful to find those workers do those job jobs and allow those folks to create those jobs. i'll let you go first flt there's some tensions here. there's worries that americans won't be getting those jobs. brur i think people recognize that again the fact that we are now -- look, go through our finest universities, tech universities, high tech engineering schools and a lot of

foreign nationals that are coming here we're educating them and then sending them abroad to compete the united states. that's not a workable system. it's in our best interest to have a lot of those folks stay here, create jobs here, create businesses here. and it's pretty elvet that's also another aspect that's broken. on that one, we've pretty much reached a consensus as to how to fix it, what the right policy is and how to fix it. i think most americans understand that unfortunately we're not a lot of americans are going into engineering, not a lot of americans are going into those very high tech professions. and here's the issue. in some cases i'm oversimplifying. but we either have folks to fill those jobs in the united states, or we're going to export those jobs to other countries. to compete against the united states. so we have to have a workable system. i think we've pretty much

reesmed a consensus on how to get there technically. >> i would just add that the technology factor is not just one answer. and you've got people stanford university had their graduation two weekend ago. half of the people getting their phd in computer science were foreign students. they're going to go out and create companies and create tremendous -- you look at those and say how much wealth is going to be created by that group. we want that wealth to be created here. so we -- for that group and others like them, you want to give them startup visas, make sure that they have an easy way path forward to become americans if they want to do that. we also have i think the answer is more to legal permanent residents than these temporary visas, which is what the h-1b program is. but it needs reform. and i'll give you an example. sometimes we hear from engineers that the h-1b program allows for engineers to undercut the wages of american workers. it's important to listen and

look because it's easy to say how could that be true? it could be true. computer scientists in silicon valley, the median income at the last bureau of labor stats sticks survey was about $133,000 a year. for level one wages in that same survey, it was $86,000 because it's 17% of the median. so you can see that when we -- we need to reform that program and actually we've worked hard to do that. so that you've got good people not undercutting the american workforce. we've had buy-in from the technology companies. i mean, there are some bad actors in the field. but they're not the companies that we're talking to. the other thing that we've -- we are pursuing is a proposal that

microsoft made in a white paper last year which is to add some fees to the applications and use the proceeds to help american students go into stem fields. to help with scholarships. i mean, college is expensive. and if we help students go into engineering, in colleges, that would be a good thing for america. again, that's not a fight with the industry. it's a reform package that we've worked on very hard and i think it's really a very good work product that we've put together. >> i want to encourage everyone if you have questions to please step to the microphones ile at nate each side. if you say your name and say where you're from. you mentioned the tech industry. to what extent do you think the business communities lobbying in support for comprehensive

immigration reform will make a difference? real quick answer before we turn to this gentleman? >> look, i think it's important for everyone including the high tech industry to come forward and the restaurant industry. everyone. to come forward and to make sure that everybody understands what the problems are and what the needs are and i think -- look, this group has been meeting quietly for a long time working for a long time. we have reached out to peer groups and members of congress. what we have not been able to do is keep the confidential to avoid premature to the system. we know that is coming. it has not been done in a vacuum. we have been listening. that has been one of the most important things. we have done a lot of listening and learning. >> we will do a little bit more of listening. the gentleman over here. >> many thanks for doing this. i would like to ask now that the committee is moving full steam ahead, would it be too late for the bipartisan group to show

their version? is there concern that what happened with the farm bill -- any scenario with immigration reform in the house? >> the chairman is correct. we have had several partisan bills reported out of the judiciary committee and partyline votes. i think it has been very unfortunate. some of the bills are absurd. i will give you an example. all of the farmers in the

farmworkers union got together. they came up with an agreement to deal with america's needs. we have accepted that. it is probably the best we are going to get. in contrast, the judiciary committee reported the plan. require them to step forward and identify themselves and leave the country and maybe they will be eligible to maybe come back. if anybody thinks that will work, it is absurd. none of the farmers are for it. i do think that we have the capacity to greatly impact the path forward. we're not -- you of how how to get 11 million people with the law. we hope to be able to answer that question again in the near future. mario is part of the republican majority.

i'm not deserving a rush. i do think that we have time to come up with an approach. >> i agree. i do think we have time. it shows that it is difficult to get something done in the house. it is a very diverse group. i am convinced that when which comes to shove, it is not pretty. if you will get something done, it will be a bipartisan effort. >> over here. >> what about a compromise for the 11 million undocumented? i love people to sue the

american -- allowing people to pursue the american dream. >> in order to fix the issue, we have to deal with all of that. it is not working for low skilled or high skilled. we need to reach a solution, commonsense solution that is essential. we talked about enforcing the orders -- borders. >> i remember when i chaired the subcommittee. a witness was the head of the border patrol. his testimony was that if we get

a legalization program that would allow the nannies and the busboys to come over it legally, it would help them a great deal to identify the human traffickers and drug smugglers on the border. that is still our challenge. >> huffington post. this is for congresswoman lofgren. the judiciary has been taking up absurd he smeal. what is the relationship there? you say that weiner has been working with you -- taking up absurd piecemeals.

what is the relationship there? you say that john boehner has been working with you. >> the speaker was very courteous and met with me. i wouldn't say that he is working with me on an ongoing basis. in the case of mr. goodlatte, we have a professional relationship. there are immigrations -- situations where we have worked together on bills. i think -- >> he held a hearing on your bill. >> i think the path forward is a decision that of the republican leadership needs to make. i cannot make it for them. i can't express my hope on what they would decide. the majority decides what bills are heard i am hopeful we will have a better approach than we have had so far. i will say this -- although we had, i think there was obviously

an effort to have poison pills or matters that democrats could never support the cause, i mean, to make every undocumented person a federal criminal, i mean, that is unwarranted. we were not screaming at each other. we disagreed in a professional way, and we have an opportunity if the republican party decides to move forward to do so in a professional manner. >> i think you have seen a very dramatic change in just attitudes and rhetoric and everybody calming down. i think there is always going to be some who have a moment of -- an emotional moment. i think you are seeing a focus on the issue. if we can focus on the issue and solutions to those issues, i think ultimately we will get to a bill that we can -- that will

become law. >> mike nelson, i write about technology and technology policy for bloomberg government. it is nice to see bipartisan moving forward. my question is about technology and immigration, particularly about online politics. a lot of groups are out there to overcome inertia. what is most interesting is the virtual march for innovation. bipartisan groups, condoleezza rice, arnold schwarzenegger, mayor bloomberg. is there more about how to get a message that is not just about technology, it is about every person? >> every discussion i've had with opponents of the stop online piracy act, at the end of the last congress, i remember doing a conference call in november to forge the markup, and telling all of these young,

technologically-savvy people, don't do these online petitions because take a look at the demographics of the house of representatives. i don't even know what is going on. what you need to do is flood phone calls in to the capital. not the district office. that gets noticed. i am sorry to report that, but we have some younger members who tweet, but it is basically invisible to way too many members. the way to get attention is for individuals to either e-mail or call their own representative in the house. we work for the whole country, but we are employed by the voters of our district. and we go back to a hiring decision to our voters every other year. so that is the most powerful message, is when people call their own representative.

>> that is so true. the other thing is that even then, it is not helpful if you just call and say hey, you know, if you don't do this, i hate you. again, focus on specific issues. focus on -- you have a restaurant, talk about what your issues are with that restaurant. what sort of things would help you, what sort of things are hurting you. specifics like that are very constructive. but it is important that a -- that it comes from the member's district. >> another question here. >> i am jerry hagstrom from the "hagstrom report." i cover agriculture. you spoke positively about agreement and the senate bill. would i be in the building you are working on, and i'm wondering what mr. diaz-balart thinks about the agricultural several -- section of the bill in the guestworker proposal. >> we are not going to reveal what is in our bill, but let me

just say that when you can have 70 farm organizations, i mean, it is everything from the sheepherders to the tobacco growers and the vegetable people i mean, everybody. come to an agreement with united farm workers union, that is a pretty amazing thing. i think it is worthy of great deference. in fact, the senate did give it great deference. when you try to do a better job, and then it is easy to say this could be different or that could be different, but it is all put together in a way that is hard to undo. i think it is far superior to what was reported out of the judiciary committee that is basically not even a plan, it is completely dysfunctional. >> one of the things that you know but i did not until we started getting involved is how complex and how diverse the needs are of our cultural.

regional, by industry, by product, by whatever. we have met with all of those different players. i think because of the i think because of the complexity -- clearly having the industry and labor getting together is great. if not that we like every -- it does not mean that we like every aspect or agree with every aspect, but we have to have the opportunity to meet, to talk, to see if it is workable, so i think it is a great for what they put together. >> one less question over here, and i will work -- i will wrap it up. >> erica warner with ap. there is public pressure on congress to ask, is something that mccain said after the vote last night. i'm wondering if you could address given that many conservatives in our district with minimal numbers of latino voters come a how would that pressure really be felt by them?

that being the case, given that speaker boehner would not act without a majority of the majority, why is there any realistic excitation or hope that the house -- expectation or hope that the house will do anything? >> the assumption that because there is a senate bill the house will feel threatened, pressured to support a bill, frankly is not accurate. i think the real pressure is the pressure to fix an immigration system that is broken. zero pressure is dealing with the fact that estimates are we have 10 or 11 million undocumented folks that are here today. tomorrow it could be 30 million. we do not control it. the pressure to deal with a broken border security system, pressure with fixing a system that is not helping our economy but hurting our economy. that is the pressure that needs to come to bear. if anybody thinks that because there is a senate bill that the house members will feel pressured, that is just not true.

i think, however, in the house, there are people who understand, that got elected to fix what is broken. i think it is very evident that very few things are as broken and are as detrimental to our national security, to our economic, stability, security, to our future, than with this broken immigration situation. i hope they feel pressure because women broken system that i think we can show there are fixes that are enforceable, that make sense, that protect the rule of law, and help our economy. that is the pressure i think will hopefully come to bear. >> can i just add -- one of the questions was not directed to me, but this is not just a

latino issue. it is, not just that. if you take a look at the asian- american community, take a look at the southern baptists, who have really stepped up to the bat in a big-time way to support comprehensive immigration reform, the evangelicals who are calling into offices, the conservative branch of evangelicals, who have become very active in supporting reform of the system, the business community that has stepped up to the back, and odyssey chamber of comments -- to bat, and not just the chamber of commerce. we do not know where this is going to end up, that there is a broad group across america saying we have got a problem here, and we need to fix it. i know because i have heard members, very conservative members, that are paying attention. they have not reach a conclusion yet, but they have not ruled out being part of the reform effort.

>> if you're concerned about amnesty, we have to pass legislation. if you're concerned about a broken border system because people are here unlawfully and we do not control that, we have got to pass legislation that deals with that. if you are concerned about the fact that we are exploiting high-tech people that compete against us, we have to pass legislation to fix that. that is where i think the pressure points are. if we can focus on the problem and solutions as opposed to rhetoric, i think we're halfway there. >> just to wrap up, speaker boehner said july 10, house members will vote, they will hear from their constituents, they will meet on july 10 two decided on the path forward. when he looks over to you, congressman diaz-balart, and he says i need to step up and tell us what is going on with this bipartisan proposal, what is your message going to be to your fellow members of your conference and speaker boehner about whether you all can deliver something by the august date?

>> again, i am not speaking for her, but we have not been fixated on deadlines. we have been fixated on getting a bill that we think can get bipartisan support, that is real, that a healthy economy, all of the things that we have already talked about, that is what we have focus on. what i keep hearing is total get total discontent with a broken immigration system. there are disagreements as to how to fix it. it is our challenge, i think, and it is our challenge to be able to present to our colleagues an approach that is reasonable, that faces what is broken, that helps our economy,, that protect the rule of law, that forces -- that enforces the border, that is our challenge, and i think we can get there. the important thing is to make sure that people recognize. clearly is not going to be perfect, but it deals with them, fixes a way that is enforceable, that is our challenge and our

concern, to get it right. >> the final question to both of you -- it is alternately going to come down to a decision for speaker boehner with his speaker's gavel that could alternately help the republican party, help the country, in the future? >> i don't know, mario may have a greater insight, but i have always believed it would be necessary to have a good chunk of republican support to pass a bill. that is why we work so long to try and grow a solid bill that not only democrats but republicans can support. that is still my hope and goal. i have to do for the rest of the question to mario. >> i do not see it that way. our challenge is to build to come up with legislation that the majority of our colleagues will support. that the majority of our colleagues will understand is -- does what we claim it do.

that is our challenge. i've said it multiple times. i think to get this done, we need it to be bipartisan, not bipartisan like week and a nod it is bipartisan, it cannot pretend to be bipartisan. it has to be bipartisan. the country has to understand that it is real, serious, permanent, enforceable. i think there are less -- it are a lot of people in the house that want to fix this. i know that speaker boehner once a solution. -- wants a solution. our challenge is to give a proposal that meets that criteria. >> thank you both very much for sharing your thoughts on this controversial and important topic. you have given me a lot of an initiative. i'm going to go on the hill and interview congress and the good life for my show, "capitol gains," thank you very much. thank you for coming. [applause]

we'll have another event here soon on bloomberg government. >> tomorrow, a roundtable discussion on president obama plan for climate change. a lawyer and lobbyist. the federal communications director with the national resource defense council. washington journal live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this sunday, american history tv commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. wednesday, senator angus king spoke on the senate floor about the battle. >> we all know a week from tomorrow is our nations most

important anniversary, july 4. the birthday of the country. 2 is also oneuly of our most important anniversaries. because july 1, second, and third for the day that the battle of gettysburg occurred. probably the defining event in the history of this country. it is especially important this year because it is the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, and what i would like to do is share just a few moments about one particular aspect of that battle, that it does indeed involve maine and alabama, and it involves a man from maine named joshua chamberlain, who in 1862, was a professor of modern languages at bowdoin college. was not a soldier, did not have history in the military, but decided he had a vision of america and wanted to serve his country. he joined a volunteer regiment organized in may of 1886 called

the 20th maineregiment. they came down the east coast to washington and were immediately deployed to antietam in september 1862, the bloodiest day in american history. fortunately for the 25th maine, they were held in reserve that day. they saw action over the course of the fall and early winter in the battle of fredericksburg, and then along with two great armies, headed north into the state of pennsylvania. mr. president, you are going to have to bear with my skills here, but it is helpful if we can see what happened. it is easy to drop virginia because it is a big triangle. here is virginia. here is the maryland- pennsylvania border. in the summer of 1863, two

armies snaked north out of virginia. lee's army of northern virginia came up the west side of the appalachians into pennsylvania, shadowed by meade's army of the potomac. lee was leading the way into pennsylvania without a particular destination but a desire to engage the federal army and one climactic battle which he thought, correctly, could have ended the civil war. nobody knows exactly why on july 1, 1863 those two armies collided in the little town of gettysburg. there is a rumor and there was a shoe factory there and that the southern army was going to requisition those shoes, but for whatever reason, the two armies met in this little town of gettysburg, pennsylvania. one of the interesting things about the battle was, lee's army had already gotten to harrisburg.

the union army was coming up the road from washington and from the south, and they came in in this direction. at the battle of gettysburg, the southern army came in from the south, and the northern army came from the north. it was a standoff. they met almost by accident in this town. there was fierce fighting in the streets of gettysburg and in the south of town. it was essentially a drop. at the end of the day on july 1 and the word came back to both armies that this was it. this was the confrontation. reinforcements came in from both lines to meet at this little town. what happened on the second day was, on the morning and the second day, the union troops -- and this is the town up here -- ended up on a hill called copps

hill, and then in a long line to the south, an area that was an old area that they buried people. of course, that is seminary ridge. on the other side, the confederates, interestingly, through history, red and markers representing the confederates, blue, a federal. the confederates were about a mile apart. over here was where they train people to be preachers. that, of course, is cemetery ridge. so generations of six raiders have been seminary ridge, cemetery ridge, generations of sixth graders have been confused by this. about the middle of the second day of battle, a union general noticed there was a small hill at the bottom of the entire line

of the union troops, and occupied by either side. he also immediately realized this could be the most important piece of property in the entire battlefield because it had an elevation that looked up the entire federal line and anchored the federal line. the union general grab the nearest officer next to him and said we have to occupy that he'll immediately. the fellow's name was vincent from new york. he grabbed two other regiments from new york and the 20th name regiment, and went to the top of the hill. joshua chamberlain had only been the colonel for a month. he was in charge of 358 men and vincent took him to the extreme left flank of the union army of this little hill which is called little round top. we had pennsylvania, new york,

and maine. vincent took joshua chamberlain to this point, and here were his orders. this is the extreme left flank of the entire union army. you are to hold this ground at all hazards, at all hazards. that means to the death. almost immediately upon getting to the top of the hill, up came the 15th alabama, one of the crack regiments in lee's army. up the hill to try to dislodge the 20th maine. if you have not been to gettysburg, if god was going to build a fortress, it would look like little round top. steep, rocky, lots of places to be behind, and indeed, chamberlain took maximum advantage of that. as the charge came, they were able to repel it.

half an hour or so, the alabama and scheme again. there were pushed back. they came again and were pushed back. each time they got closer and closer to the top of the hill, because of the nature of guns in the civil war, a good shooter in the civil war could get off four shots a minute. so i want you to think of yourself, mr. president, the top of the hill with the 15th alabama coming up, and you take aim with your rifle and shoot. bang. you are now prepared to shoot a second time. that is 15 seconds. that is how long it would take to get another shot. that is why, in this situation,

the charge came closer and closer. by the third and fourth charge, it became hand-to-hand combat. i should say, joshua lawrence chamberlain was not a soldier by trade, he was a professor at a little college. he spoke 10 languages but he had a deep vision for the meaning of america, and a deep concern about the issue of slavery. when he was a student at bowdoin college in the early 1850's the young professor's wife was writing a book, and he sat in the living room of mr. presser and listen to her read excerpts from this book. the book turned out to probably be the most influential book ever published in america. it was called "uncle tom's cabin." and described for people in america the evils of slavery.

it had lit the fuse that led to the pressure that ultimately led to the abolition of slavery. in any case, four, five charges, each time the 15th alabama was repulsed. then they were gathering at the bottom of the hill for the final assault. late in the day, hot afternoon, july 2, 1863. the problem was, for chamberlain, his men were out of ammunition. they had it been issued 60 cartridges at the beginning of the battle, and they had all been fired. he then had a choice to make as a leader. he had three options. one was to retreat, a perfectly honorable thing to do in a military situation, but his orders were to hold the ground at all hazards. because if he had not, if the confederates had gotten around little round top, the entire

rear of the union army was exposed. his other option was to stand and fight until overwhelmed. that would not have worked well. because it would have only delayed them for a few minutes. instead, he chose an extraordinary option that was unusual, even at the time, and he uttered one word, and the word was bayonets. there is a dispute in history whether he also said charge and what his order was, but everyone agrees he uttered the word bayonets, and his soldiers knew what that meant, and down the hill into the face of the final confederate charge came 200 crazy guys from maine. the 15th alabama for the first and only time in the civil war was so shocked by the technique that they turned around. the 200 boys from maine -- i say 200 because at the beginning there were over 300.

they had lost 100 to casualties and death. captured 400 to 500 confederates with no bullets in their guns. chamberlain tried to call on their men back. they said, hell no, general, we are on our way to richmond. i tell the story because it is a great story of bravery. chamberlain received the medal of honor for his bravery and creativity that afternoon. i tell the story because it is a story of our country, a story of how a single person's actions and bravery can have enormous impact. historians argue about whether this was really the key turning point, was there something else, another regiment somewhere else? the argument could be made at this college professor from maine saved the united states. the defining moment for our country was that hot afternoon

in pennsylvania, july 2, 1863. i believe it is one of the great stories in american history, and in fact, the story of chamberlain and little round top is being taught in army manuals today as a story of leadership, creativity, courage, perseverance, and of devotion to god and country. mr. president, i hope all americans will think about these moments and thousands more like them as we celebrate not only the birth of our country next week, but also the rebirth of our country in the three days prior to july 4. thank you, mr. president. >> the 150th anniversary of the historiansgettysburg.

throughout the day. later at 5:30, we will take your calls and tweets. the commemorative ceremony with keynote speaker doris goodwin, followed by a candlelight procession to the national cemetery. we will end the day with peter carmichael taking your calls and tweets. senator rand paul's up at a fund-raising dinner tonight in west columbia. by mickntroduced mulvaney. it's about half an hour. >> thank you for doing this tonight. i've been asked to introduce a friend of mine. in washington, there's a saying if you want a friend to get a dog. as because you cannot trust anybody up there.

somebody was your friend one day is try to get something for you. i have not followed there will concisely sums i've been there. i've made some good friends. you know and have heard, it is true how close jeff and tim and i have become over the last couple of years. i am proud to say the scoutmaster is a good friend of mine. he is still the senior member. i do have some good friends, but not many. it is difficult to make friends in washington, d.c.. but tonight i want to introduce one of those people. talk is relatively cheap in washington, most of it anyway. some of that has been pretty good. when i first got to washington a center called and said, you have been doing some good work with the guys, and why don't you come and meet some of the guys on my side? and we started to get together once or twice a month to have dinner and talk about these

issues. and senator demands and i would senator demint and i would get together along with some others and talk about these issues. that is how we got talking about the fiscal cliff and the debt and those sorts of things. it is very rare that you actually see that talk go into action. that is where you learn where the real leaders are. we you're crazy things happening in washington, and there is a certain -- we hear there are crazy things happening in washington, and there's a certain outrage. you call me or you call jeff and you are outraged about what is happening in the country. and you expect us to do more than just talk about it up in washington, d.c. and there are very few people who do that. there are very few people would take the outrage that you and i share internet and to action.

the gentleman i the one to introduce you to today is a delmon who takes that outrage and those words and turns them into action. i now, you know what happened when he took a relatively simple question and, in my mind it was one of the great examples of action in washington, d.c. this year. he said, is it okay the the for the united states government to kill u.s. citizens with drones? you would expect the answer to that the know. -- the answer to that to be no. a lot of us actually went out and did something about it. i heard how long you talked, 12 hours, 14, whenever. it has not been just on our individual liberties.

it was not just in a filibuster. it has been on gun-control. just yesterday, this awful senate bill that got past, the type of thing they're rand -- that's rand study of -- that rand stood up and took action against. it is highly unlikely that the republicans lost just because of grand paul. and by beginning of, then i went outside to explain how his son beat me in golf. he's a great leader and a great senator and it is my pleasure to have him here in south carolina. my friend, ran the call. [applause]

-- rand paul. [applause] >> he neglected to mention that it is a short list of friends, right? it is just a short list. and and how my errors came up, but none of his seemed to. we play every year with the democrats, and we are still pretty mad about this. we got 22-nothing this year, and last year it was 24 or something. and it's one guy, he was 22 years old and he played baseball in college. and i say, look, democrats, you guys love them -- regulations so much. why don't we pass a regulation that your pitcher can only pitch for two innings?

so far, have not gotten anything back from them on that. you guys like equality of outcome, right? maybe we need to get six hours per inning. and if nagl -- if y'all score six runs, maybe we should get six runs, just to be fair. i got up early this morning, and i could not find my cellphone. i looked everywhere for it, but i could not find it. i went in and ask harry reid i could borrow his phone. do you think the nsa is surprised to see harry reid and a republican gathering in south carolina? [laughter] i get a lot of my news from jimmy kimmel, and he said the president the other day was at a middle school. he was offering something for free, which usually does, free high speed internet. and it was kind of an awkward moment and a kid packed -- an awkward moment, because a kid walked up and said, "y, so you can read my e-mail faster? [laughter]

there was a little girl that wanted $100 and she said she would do good things with it. she wrote a letter to god asking for $100. the postmaster thought that was kind of neat, but where do our work -- where do i need it? emailed to the president, and the president said that is cute. and the president said to mike centre $5. and your parents said to always write a thank you. and she said, dear god, thank you $45. but next time, do not send it through washington, they stole thank you for the $5. but next time, do not send it to washington. they stole $95. and another one, a guy walks up to a woman on the street and says, pardon me, ma'am, do you know that the president has pardon the sequester and send it to portugal?

and one after another they said, they deserve it over there. you wonder who is voting in the elections. and then one woman said, you heard that north korea is threatening bombs and doing weapons tests. you heard the president has sent them the sequester. and once again, they deserve it. we have a disconnect between an electorate who does not know what a sequester is, or where benghazi is, but we have them engaging in the debate may be, and showing up to vote may be. on the sequestered, we are actually winning the battle on this. the president said the sky is falling. the world will end.

oh, my, we cannot possibly have this sequestered, which is a cat in the rate of increase in spending. if you have seen the charts on tv? here is without a sequester. here is without a sequester. here is with the sequestered. the same we can never knows of guided tours in the united states, do you know what he did? he had an extra $250 million to send to egypt. we have extra money in a shoebox somewhere to sent to egypt. we have no money. the cover is bare, but we have money to send overseas. when i see a mob on television burning the american flag and chanting "death to america" i say, not one penny more. [applause]

and the president said, where could we possibly cut? how will we deal with the sequester? we waited a year-and-a-half after the question was asked in 2011. a year-and-a-half later he says, what are we going to do? we have to cut out the air traffic controllers, the meat inspectors. your meat will be granted. planes will be crashing into each other. we have a $4 trillion government and that is the first thing you're going to cut back i think people -- that is the first thing you're going to cuts? i think people saw through it. he is playing games. egypt has gotten over $2 billion this year from us. we are still sending money to pakistan. pakistan imprisoned the doctor to help us to get bin laden for the rest of his life, and what do we do? we say, oh, please release him, but here is another billion dollars.

they do not understand that kind of leverage. they understand, don't send anything and they will release him. i introduced a bill that said, no more money to pakistan unless you release him. in my opinion, you should not send it at all, but being the moderate and i am, i said, we would give it back to you. you actually get all the back foreign aid that you think you deserve if you release him. i got 20 votes in the rest -- in the senate. i lost over half of the republicans on this and all of the democrats. i frankly can't say that if it was a democratic fund-raiser in columbia, -- i can say that if this was a democratic fund raiser in columbia, it would not be this big, but it would be spending more money. in washington, they still think no one will be our friend unless we send them money.

the president of egypt, morsi, stands next to his spiritual leader who says "death to israel" who is also says the israelis are descendants of pigs and dogs. i have an idea for another amendment, and so far they have not let me vote on this. why don't we ask -- president morsi to publicly recognize israel's right to exist before he gets another penny? [applause] interestingly, nobody wants to vote on these amendments. we have also talked about what you could do to cut spending. if you do not rehire people retire from government, that is $6 billion a year.

the year and a half you waited, that is $9 billion. we literally only needed about $40 billion. we are 25% of the way there. we spent $9 billion on air travel. one thing that calls me to no end -- galls me to no end is i will have people fly from washington and stay in a $500 per night hotel to have a meeting when we could have met in bowling green at no expense. weekend cut $2.2 billion from travel and save the military being cut from travel. [applause] simply have competitive contracts. in government, we do not give the bids to the lowest bidder, but to the lowest bidder that is using union scale wages out of chicago. we have a prevailing wage law that says, maybe the average car

voire dire in colombia that make makes $30 per hour, but it has to be $70 per hour. schools and roads being built sometimes cost up to 20% more. why don't we get rid of davis- bacon? it will save us $10 billion a year. [applause] but i don't think the president was really listening, so i came up with a few other ideas to get his attention. for example, we spent $325,000 on the robotic score last year. why would we need that? scientists wanted to know if a rattlesnake would strike a squirrel that was not writing its tail. but they could not get into this world -- get a squirrel to volunteer to do that. $325,000 for that.

we spent half a million dollars developing a unit to mars. if you have a child that is 26 years old and they're waiting -- were waiting for them to move out? it is the proper job for them. -- it is the perfect job for that. develop a government study. the prerequisites for doing the study were pretty strict. your kid had to like food. after spending $5,000 per person for all expenses paid trip to hawaii, they discover the best thing these college kids to come up with a copy to. -- could come up with, pizza.

there is waste everywhere. everybody who has ever been in the military knows there is waste. that does not mean i'm against national defence. it is one of the most important things that we spend money on. is it legitimate constitutional function it should be a priority. but that does not mean we write a blank check. we should audit the pentagon. too big to be audited? tom coburn on the south, one of the great deficit hawks and wease warriors up there. -- tom coburn found this out, one of the great deficit hawks and waste warriors up there, he found $7 billion that could be cut from the defense budget. they handed in $1.8 billion for a study to develop world of beef jerky. i'm not sure how that is keeping the russians or others at bay.

they had $5 billion in there to study a collection of fish. i called it a bunch of goldfish, and they were actually golden fish. there's a lot of money being wasted in a $4 trillion budget. one more, $3 billion spent to study monkeys on math onmeth. does anyone -- monkeys on meth. does anyone think that they are not just as crazy as people crazymeth? -- as people on meth?

if you do a 1% sequester across the entire budget, the budget balances within five or six years. connie mack came up with this idea and a lot of people have endorsed it. cut 1%. we have a trillion dollar budget and you cut 1%? the reason is you cut 1% from a baseline of zero. everything they talk about in washington is a lie. the budget is going up. baseline is about 5%. remember the dead commission and the biggest ever or to cut was that commission and the biggest they were. to cut was $4 trillion. spending, you can anticipate it to go up $9 trillion.

when we talk about a baseline of zero, it is only about $30 billion cut, but cbo would call it $600 million a year because they plan on getting more money. i have to stop all this. i have had a few questions for hillary clinton. [applause] she has not really answered them to my satisfaction. i have a few more that keep cropping up and i hope that we can get her back. i, frankly, think she is not telling the truth. i asked her point blank, where we sending arms from libya to turkey to syria, and might that have had something to do with the terrorist attacks that have happened? she said she had never heard of it. it has been written about in the "the new york times" 10 times and has been on fox news. if it is classified, are you

allowed to lie? that is what came up with the nsa recently were the national intelligence director kaine before the senate and he was promised -- came before the senate and he was prompted in advance. i wanted to think about this question, is the nsa collecting any data on americans? and he said publicly, no. it is against the law to lie to us. what does that do? people said the leagues have damaged our security. do you know what has damaged our security? lying, because now i don't know whether i can trust him. [applause] they now say that there are 50 terrorists that we could not have caught without this secret mining of american phone calls. but i watch what they say, though. they say, with this program and/or other sources. i am forecasting terrorists.

i have no sympathy for the tsarnaev boy. i would pull the switch after he is convicted. we had a tip on the boston bomber. the tip was that russia thought he might be a terrorist. we could not get an interview, but then he went back to chechnya we are mindful calls of america. we are up to our eyeballs in debt. we are not seeing the guy that has been tipped off to us. the underwear bomber, he was tipped off to us. he's still got on the plane and try to come over here. the tsa, do you think a 3-year- old american kid with spina bifida is going to blow up a plane? do you think a veteran who has lost both legs is one to try to blow up a plane?

you do not make a veteran take his prestige is off to go through the scanners hobbling -- his prosthesis off to go through the scanners hobbling. if you are in international traveler visiting from pakistan, you deserve more scrutiny. after 9/11, we had a special program for student visas. from 25 countries we looked especially hard at your student visas. why? because 16 of the hijackers were overstaying their student visas. was it profiling? yes, because only certain people were attacking. why do we use some brain sends to go after the people who are attacking us? [applause] i tried to reinstitute this with an amendment to the immigration

bill. i said, let's restart is targeted looking at student visas from certain countries, but let's also do it with refugees from other countries. we have admitted 70,000 people from iraq for asylum. i thought that was when you were escaping dictatorship. we have won the war and 70,000 of them are here. 80% living government housing. they should be in iraq making their country a better country. that is harsh, but that is really what should happen. we do not need them here immediately and all on government assistance. but we don't want to talk about national security with regard to our borders. the boston bomber, when we did catch the young one -- one was

killed in a firefight and the other was wounded. the boston policeman came to speak at a fund-raiser and i thought it was important. you may not all agree, but it is worth thinking about. he said, when i got to the scene, it was horrific. i was applying tourniquets and trying to save people's lives. it is just hard to imagine people blown to smithereens. and he said, then we have got a stable and we were in pursuit of these two killers, and i was angry at them -- and i still feel this incredible anger. but he said, after the firefight and we capture them, we did not drive them through the street and beat them with tire irons. because we are civilized. it is what separates us from them. this young man is evil. there is nothing good about killing women and children and think that will lead vance a

political cause. -- will advance a political cause. he is going to get an attorney. he is going to be convicted and he will be punished. but it is better than putting someone to death in other places around the world and not trying them. i am for getting information out of him, but indefinitely sending people there, or to give american citizens, is not the way to go about it. we had an american citizen accused of terrorism to be sent to guantanamo bay without a charge, without a trial. there's been a time in our history when we did stuff like this, when a black man in 1910 would be strung up from the nearest tree if someone accused him of rape. there was no trial. it was an awful time in our history. we took the japanese in world war ii and put them in concentration camps, an awful time in our history.

it is a novel concept to think that we're going to send an american -- an awful concept to think that we are going to send an american. think about who a terrorist might be. people have multiple weapons at home -- anybody in here? people who have weatherized ammunition. this is the list of suspects for terrorism. do you think you might want a trial before you get sent to guantanamo bay? we do need to be careful. finally, i would say what makes us a bigger party is what -- is ultimately, the message of optimism. there is a painting by robert bly and he said, you should paint like a man coming over a hill singing.

when i think of what our message should be, i think of patrick henry -- give me liberty or give me death. i think of the passion of the founding fathers, of those who stood up for the fourth amendment, the first amendment, the second amendment, with passion. terrorists are bad people. so are rapists and murderers. we give them all trials. we want to stand up for our system. when we come -- become the party that stands of and proclaims our message like a man coming over a hill singing, then we will be the dominant party again. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> senator? >> left a gift from our republican -- we have a gift from apple republican party that we would like to give to you. thank you for being here. [applause]

>> that is the end of our official program. if you want to socialize. >> i do not plan on streamlining the government.

>> you remind me of him. there is a reason. >> he is validated all of it. >> a good. good. >> excuse me. >> i am a foreigner committee member. we were very instrumental in this. >> thank you for having us. thank you. >> it is good to see you. i admire you. >> all right, thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you so much. >> thank you for coming. >> i have from charleston.

inwill be coming down november. >> we're excited about that. he is a good guy. >> i live in charleston. >> thank you for comment. >> this is my son. -- >> take you for coming. >> printer 50 cadets in the club. cadets from the club. >> i just graduated. >> thank you. told them you might be coming down. they are excited. >> how are you doing? this is my dad. >> we appreciate you. eight big fan of your work.

-- a big fan of your work. >> thank you. davis?ou know craig >> where does he live? do not know. maybe new york. he is a friend of mine. he has a lot of friends. we went by to talk to him. i am sure he left you a card. i will mail you one. i really respect what you're doing. >> thank you. thank you. >> is one of your house of representatives, too. is he?e? -- >> he is. >> what part of the state? >> i do not know. i met him about a week ago. >> i am part of the americans

watching washington association. i do not know if you have heard of that. >> no. thank you. >> where you from? >> in georgia. i work in education. >> immigration policy with the georgia republican doug collins. and then representative. where lversight debate erner used her fifth amendment rights. tomorrow morning on c-span, will bring you a live discussion of the supreme court's major decisions and chief justice john roberts as he sits down with

harvie wilkinson to talk about the courts and the constitution. olson,include theodore linda greenhouse, and other scholars. join us live at 9:00 a.m. eastern following "washington journal." tv,his sunday, american rates the wonder 50 anniversary anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. the 100morates anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. >> this particular regiment was recruited in the fire halls of new york city. the firemen of new york answered the call into the army as union soldiers. here on0 of them out

july 2. they will suffer 46% casualties. honorable set the this, "are our times in the lives of nations where the energetic actions of courage of even a small number of men will arouse others to a noble sentiments and spur them on to a sense of their duty and a greater degree of the children was a look -- children was eloquence of gifted orator." >> be what your 50th anniversary of gettysburg. historians throughout the day. later at 5:30 p.m., we will take your calls and tweets. a penn state professor. followed by a candlelight procession. what ended the day at 9:15 p.m.

with peter carmichael taking your calls and tweets. you can submit questions at facebook.com/c-spanhistory. >> we are back with the doug collins. house as theon the senate passed legislation. what are the prospects for smart -- with the prospects? there are so many different issues that will be taken up. we are going very piecemeal approach. investigating it. finding the right answer. it concerns me the words of doug schumer. bigotry of his words the ones wanting to be legal. there a lot of problems, got. there are things that are not

answered. it was brought in on friday passed on monday. well into 8000 pages. not understanding that implementation. not having a good metric. those are just issues that will come up. the house has a different feel for it. the front of their website this morning the witness had lied -- headline showing the vote. ready to revolt. for public and looks to block. one of your colleagues called in a pipe dream and through dr. window. legislationigration make it through the house? what would it look like. that is the question. i talked about in my district and the need to look at legal immigration side which is badly broken. the legal side which we are doing with those who are already here and what we do with us aspect -- with the prospect of

the moving forward. and the enforcement side. the general feeling is we are looking back at 1986. we would enforce the borders that would keep us from getting into the issues we are in. we do with those who are here illegally.

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] what we are about today is not to prosecute lois lerner, ably though our colleague from south carolina seems to be doing. it is to ensure the protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen. mr mica referred to her as a ureaucrat thumbing her nose at congress, and that is what this is about. that is not what this is about. this is first and foremost it was lerner, a citizen, invoking one of the most sacred privileges and tried in the bill of rights, her fifth amendment ight to protect herself. the record will show from the

very beginning when she was summoned she resisted him and she invoked her fifth amendment right. she came here under subpoena, a partisan issued subpoena, not supported by our side. against her will. and she made a statement and then refused to answer any questions, and was dismissed by the chairman come up properly so. mr. gowdy would have you believe the fact that she made any statement constitutes a waiver of her constitutional right, not just self-incriminating. i beg to differ. case law is very clear that the fact that she made a statement does not somehow constitute a waiver. there's a famous case during a different era, united states vs. hogue in which mr. hogue made a statement. i am not so engaged. i will not so engage in the future. i am not a spy or saboteurs.

and then invoke the fifth amendment. the court found that did not constitute a waiver, just like this case, lois. another case, the supreme court was crystal clear that it is a very high standard you have to meet before you can determine that someone in fact has waived their fifth amendment. i think the record is quite clear ms. lois intended from the beginning to invoke her fact -- fifth amendment and protect herself as an american citizen as she is entitled to do. even though we would like to hear her testimony. i would too. if we do this today, every american citizen is at risk who is ever summoned before this committee, and it could be construed, as though i am sure that is not the intent, that by insisting she appear under subpoena and having her at the

witness table, one observer could claim she could claim a constituted entrapment. i'm sure not that is what our intent was, but i would put out that the d.c. bar ethics code says when someone has invoked the fifth amendment, it is wrong to haul them before a committee, and the word they use is, if the only purpose to be served by doing that is to pillory them, that is the verb, which invokes images of different eras in american history that the fifth amendment was designed to prevent from recurring. like the salem witch trials. where people were pilloried and worse. i believe that if we pass this resolution, we are trampling on the rights of an american citizen him and that trumps everything. that trumps the need for her

testimony to my that trumps her status as a federal employee, that trumps her status as an official at the irs. if we are not about protecting the rights of american citizens, what are we about as members of congress? i urge colleages to put aside politics here. i urge my colleagues to go carefully about what we are about to do. you may make a small political gain by passing this resolution, with long-term costs, and you will erode the confidence in the people in what we are about, and there is an institutional commitment all of us need to be concerned about. and i plead with my colleagues to think carefully, why not take some time and have a hearing so we can air this out? yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from tennessee.

mr. duncan. >> thank you mr. chairman . i rise to speak in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank the actions of the chairman in bringing up this resolution, which are entirely appropriate, and i understand they are bringing done under the dvice of house counsel and i wish to second their marks by my colleague mr. gowdy. i spent many years as a law year and a judge coming to congress nd spent the last7 1/2 years as judge trying felony criminal cases. read andicle i've ever every case i have read about the fifth amendment would not have allowed and in fact as a lawyer i never would have advised a client that they could give a statement under oath and then plead the fifth. as a judge, i would never allow

a defendant in my court to testify and make a statement and emphatically declare their innocence and then plead the fifth at that point. that would make a mockery out of the fifth amendment. and i think it is accurate to say the record will show that i was a judge who leaned very much in favor of defendants. i was never a prosecutor, and i did everything possible as a judge to bend over backwards to make sure that all defendants appearing in my court got every right that they were entitled o. but lois lerner came in here and on nine separate occasions eclared her innocence or strongly asserted that she had done nothing wrong, repeatedly. i cannot allow witnesses to

testify under oath and then plead the fifth to keep from being questioned or cross-examine. it is not fair, it is not consistent with the history of our country and judicial history. the key here is that committee is operating under rules different from other committees. most other committees in the congress do not swear witnesses and place them under oath before they testify. lois lerner came here under oath and he essentially told her side of the case and then pled the fifth, denying them i self, mr. gowdy, and other members any opportunity to question her or cross-examine her. so i rise in opposition or speak in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, and i believe the actions of the chairman in bringing forth this underlying resolution are

entirely appropriate and consistent with all the legal precedents and history in this country. thank you very much. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i thank the gentleman. i take a short moment to respond to my friend from virginia, who spoke so eloquently about the sanctity of the fifth amendment. i think it is important that somebody be represented by counsel, and ms. lerner was. it is more important through realize that most important that she made voluntary decisions, not just a decision to make an opening statement that made claims and assertions on point, but then to answer additional questions after she invoked her fifth-amendment privilege to answer additional questions. i am not an attorney, even though i serve on judiciary and have this obligation here today. is why we sought counsel and took the time.

it is the result of recognizing there is both a legal precedent for this, and many people here have not taken the time for it over the last 37 days, but the important thing is the respect for the constitution is also respect for the fact that if somebody comes and gives testimony, they become subject o cross-examination. and the decision here today is to my did she have testimony, and did she choose to take offense,, and is she subject to hat cross-examination? i know everybody here in this room, if accused of a crime or even just being sued a month they would want a right to cross-examination. we the people would like to ross--examine her.

i thank the gentleman for yielding back. >> the gentleman is ecognized. >> i think this is an incredibly serious question put to this committee. all of us want to hear what she has to say and what information she may bring. we want to do our job and get on with the investigation that nderlies this. we're hopefully just as concerned about aching sure this committee upholds the constitution, particularly, the fifth amendment rights on any citizen matter what we think of the citizen's earlier activities or statements. i am concerned that this unusual proceeding, that she was subpoenaed her attorney made it clear that she was going to plead the fifth, and yet he continued to force her to come in before the committee. as mr. connolly said, what for?

to pillory her? to make an example of her? to put her in a situation where she might then be forced to waive? in the judicial process, and i think mr. connolly made it clear, that is not the usual way to proceed. in this bar it would be considered a questionable ethical practice to put somebody in that kind of an untenable situation. i'm concerned from the outside of what that was about, about spectacle or about trying to move this matter forward on that. i am also concerned that we are dealing with an issue of law here. you're asking this group of non-lawyers to make a decision based on a consultative legal question, and it is not as cut as dried as some wish it ere. there is opinion on both sides. we have had some days where we relight the chairman was going to move in this direction to seek out some advice and we got dvice on both sides.

i think responsible and credible lawyers and constitutional experts on either side of the issue, and it deserves a full exposition here as the amendment would do of having experts come in and brief us and testify as to what underlies their opinions. the former house counsel stated that that introduction to the committee was a profession of her innocence, offered prior to the commencement of questioning. it contained no fax relating to the subject matter and denied wrongdoing. he would not recommend that she be brought in for contempt or found that she had waived her rights. another expert from columbia law school, makes it clear his opinion that her willingness and response to the requests that she authenticate her prior statements deprive her to the fifth amendment privilege, which id not happen.

her willingness to authenticate them to admit the prior statements are made without concessions of veracity is not testimony of substance to the prior state and straight he gave a siding for that. there's conflicting information on that. although the chairman indicates members were allowed to see his requests for house counsel opinion, i am looking at the e-mail that went back-and-forth that says i says i would also ask that you not distribute it widely, " like to all of your members." my question is, which of your members here, would you like not to see this, would you like not to be fully briefed before they made this decision? which members have different status than members on your side, whom you were willing to share this in advance? that is entirely unreasonable

and unfair and should not happen, and i find that his offenses to people who might be included in that category. we have not had ample time that an exposition of facts. we have been deprived. how is mr. cummings likely to determine -- i see some eyes rolling over there. >> would the gentleman yield? >> in a second. i want to make this point as clearly as i can. the ramifications are bad for the house. i would ask that you not distribute it widely like to all of your members. i would yield only of the gentleman wants tell us which one of all these members in the majority would not want to see the report? >> the chairman yields? >> for that purpose. >> the gentleman should not have to answer that question. >> i am sorry that you are offended -- that we offered any sharing of an -- >> if you are not going to answer, i claim my time--

>> this was an opinion given to the majority on my request. this was the chairman's request. >> it was an opinion to the members of the house -- >> no, that was not correct. >> who did you not want to see that report? >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> legitimate excuses -- the gentleman's excuses have waned, too. >> we now go to the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think we're losing the focus of our purpose. i have great regard for the gentlelady from washington who has looked from the perspective of both sides of the equation. we are doing a great deal of talk about the characterization of lois lerner and the idea that somehow we are here attempting to embarrass the witness.

i go back to the point, we are not here with regard to lois lerner. e are here because there are american citizens who were affected by the agency that she oversaw who used her authority in the irs to what we believe to be an impressive fashion against what could be their constitutional rights, and, potentially, any criminal fashion. and so, what we really have, we are engaged in a civil proceeding. and to the extent to which lois lerner has rights that she can invoke using her fifth amendment, they were to any ultimate question that she may be accountable to any criminal for, not here. what she says here may be relevant, and there's plenty of history with regard to that issue.

but let's go to the facts of what happened here. we are here on a civil proceeding, and we do have a responsibility, and oversight responsibility, to address that which we just articulated, it is the responsibility to assure that the rights of citizens have not been oppressed by the irs. lois lerner does not have any right to refuse to answer questions before this committee unless they would in fact incriminate her. she may in fact -even-and it is not uncommon in the civil practice of law for a person to come in and to be deposed and under a normal course of questioning, she has competent counsel and there are questions that will be answered, and counsel will take a particular question and say that goes to the potential, that it might be a meaningful basis that it could incriminate her criminally, and there is a broad reading of that. i suspect that lois order comes back here, she will invoke the fifth amendment to quite a few. in fact, everything.

the fact of the matters, we have changed the dynamic here. with competent counsel, some of the best attorneys available, and lois learner is an attorney herself. she comes here with a higher degree of awareness of what she was doing. she voluntarily changed the dynamic. when she chose to use the foreman, where she was aware there was going to be a national forum for her to declare whatever it is that she wanted to do, and she used this occasion very specifically, and the gentleman from south carolina but through an eloquent way the number of ways she opened the door. i have in my hands here the letter from counsel. we knew what she was doing why invoking the fifth. all she had to do was sit there

and say " i invoke the fifth." end of case. we would not be here today. she was the one who put into the record, the subject matter. she opened the door to the subject matter. she is the one that included the reference to the i.g. report. which talked about inappropriate activity on the part of the i.r.s. and talking about specifically potential political activity that was inappropriate. she is the one that bought the i.g.'s report into this. she is the one who made these statements, i did not break any laws, i did not violate any irs rules or regulations, i did not give any false testimony to this or any other congressional committee. with respect all of the things that had just previously been dentified. that is the subject matter in which she put it into play. that is a voluntary waiver. into determination on her

part with counsel sitting right behind her. we are here today because lois lerner made a choice. she made a choice to use this form for purposes. and i ask this committee to remember why we are here, not for lois lerner, but to make sure that we stand up for the rights of those who have been oppressed by the irs. i conclude my comments by saying lois lerner is not surrendering any fifth amendment rights, as we can see what is happening going down line. to the extent she will invoke fifth amendment privilege and we would hold her in contempt, it will go before a qualified court of law. and there it will be brief, and there they will have the best of attorneys if it gets to the matter, and prior to that there may be a decision for other kinds of activities the committee would make that would make that issue not relevant. but as to today, as to this moment, it was lerner opened the door and she cannot have it both ays.

and i believe at this point in time, this is a simple resolution which is simply saying that we have the ability to ask her to come back to answer questions with regard to the issues that she opened the door to. and she may ultimately than invoke her fifth amendment, and we will be back for further proceedings, but this is not something that violates her rights. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the lady from the district of columbia -- all those in favor will signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> no. >> n the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. >> mr. chairman ? >> are you asking far roll call

vote? >> no, i'm asking to be recognized for five minutes. >> i did not recognize the gentleman. >> are you requesting a roll call vote? >> no, i'm asking for five minutes to speak. >> you will have five minutes on the amendment. on the resolution. >> i am asking for a roll call vote. >> you're very welcome. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote] >> mr. mchenry? mr. mchenry votes no. mr. jordan? mr. jordan votes no. mr. chaffitz? mr. chaffitz votes no. mr. mosh votes no. mr. mann votes no.

mr. gowdy votes no. r. hastings? mr. woodall votes no. mr. massey votes no. mr. collins votes no. mr. meadows votes no? mr. desantos votes no. r. cummings votes aye. s. norton votes aye. mr. connoly votes aye. mr. cartwright votes aye.

ms. duckworth votes aye. mr. cardenas votes aye. r. jordan, you are not ecorded. >> mr. hastings, how do you vote? >> no. > mr. hastings votes no. >> does anyone else seek recognition for the vote? the clerk will report. >> 20 nos, 16 ayes. >> the amendment is not agreed to. ince we have a vote on the

floor and wanting to leave ample time on the underlying resolution, we will stand in recess. we will do one more on the underlying. we will stand at recess until five minutes after the last vote. >> pursuant to the previous announcement, the committee will come to order. is there anyone here who wishes o speak on the resolution? i'll be patient.

i'll recognize myself. lest we lose the time. today we have had ample debate on the question of a straightforward resolution, did ms. lois lerner on may 30, 2013, in all or part, proceed after asserting her fifth amendment privilege and if so, did she waive? that will be the question to be decided in the vote that will come momentarily. it is my assertion that she did. having heard the debate, i have not changed my position. and i will reserve pending -- for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> well, mr. chairman, as you

know -- >> would you like to move to strike the last word on the resolution before us? >> i would, please. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, sir. i do want to note for the record i originally requested time on the amendment. that time has been denied e. but -- and nothing i can do about that now. i do agree this is a serious question before the committee. we have -- we have balancing interests here. one is we certainly need to be able to call witnesses before this committee and expect the truth. i think that's at the very core of our ability to conduct meaningful oversight and reasonable oversight. and that certainly is -- is essential, especially this committee and the role that it plays. on the other hand, there is a constitutional right in the fifth amendment to have a

witness avoid elf-incrimination. and that's -- that's extremely important as well. and i for one believe i know the gentleman from florida spoke earlier today. he was seemingly offended that american citizens might come before this committee and thumb their nose at their overnment. i think that is a constitutional right to thumb your nose at the government. and i think considering the fact that congress' favorability ratings at 6% there are other americans that would use a different finger with respect to congress today. >> is the gentleman referring to the upcoming parades? >> i'm not sure what you mean. >> don't you get waved at in your parade? >> oh, yeah, obviously. reclaiming my time. but i think in light of the scandals not only with the i.r.s. but with the n.s.a., i think a lot of americans seriously doubt

the integrity of some of their governmental institutions including our own. but this -- this hearing does not set the precedent that the gentleman from florida spoke of earlier. we have not had a hearing on this. we have not -- we have not done the meaningful investigation that would -- would explain to he court and look. we assume that there will be a contempt citation issued by this congress. it will be appealed to the court. and at some point, the court will look, and they will say how did congress arrive, how did the committee first of all on government reform arrive at this decision that ms. lerner was in ontempt? and they will look at the underlying record. that's what they'll look at. what -- what is the reasonableness and what is the thoroughness of congress' inquiry?